Aviapedia

Yak-141 and F-35 video

By Pavel | November 26, 2005 on 8:38 pm | In Aviation Video, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter |

Click to download Yak-141 and F-35 video - interesting combination of Yak-141 “Freestyle” and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter scenes in one video.
30,2 Mb, 2:28, 480 x 352, avi

61 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post.

yes its good this plane f-35 is russian yak-141
the amrican can`t do athing withaut copy

Comment by cool — November 27, 2005 #
Yes the americans copy everything.

That is why the russians built copies of the Boeing superfortress from WW2 and developed the technology into the tupelov reconnesence aircraft… Stealing designs and mass producing copies was mastered by the russians.

Comment by Jools — December 29, 2005 #
Yes, like many other things, like terrorism, air space flight theory etc. Russian are very reach for the ideas.

Anyway, it’s normal situation. Every great nation try to cut the corners and if there is possibility to save time on stealing and copying - for sure it will be done. It was at all the times and I’m not sure it will change. Russian stealed technology, when they had nothing better, nothing to start from. Any other nation do the same, when it’s needed.
Latest example I can think of - story with Mig-25, when it was stealed and landed abroad - don’t remember exactly, in China or something like this.

Comment by Pavel — January 5, 2006 #
i heared he landed in Japan, pavel.

Comment by russian — February 10, 2006 #
Yes, right. They all looks the same for me It happened 6 of September, 1976. It was pilot Belenko at the controls of the plane that landed in Japan. I have video-material about it, hope will publish soon.

Comment by Pavel — February 11, 2006 #
something i have noticed is that America and Russia BOTH steal ideas from sweden and from each other. The russians usually modify US designs (such as Tu 160 and B 1) while the US steals technology and design ideas (engines, avionics). In Korea, they offered $100 000 for the first mig 15 pilot to defect with his aircraft and $50 000 for every one after that. They also spent a lot of time and money on electronic surveilance. They also spent a lot of money to be allowed to inspect a Tu 160 owned by Ukraine, they also paid a lot of attention the the mig 25’s radar.

Comment by Munzy — February 24, 2006 #
to Munzy:

in what way has USA stolen a swedish airplane design? im not saying it has’nt happend just curious.

Comment by JAS fan — March 28, 2006 #
You, both U.S. and Russians just stealing from the Germans. There is [almost] no technical achievement, idea or ideology that was not originated by the Germans.

Comment by Ken — April 4, 2006 #
If you guys are going to trash talk about America do it right. America didn’t steal Russia’s idea’s, if we did we would have the same planes and other stuff, and even if they did steal plans, prove it.

Comment by Chris — April 30, 2006 #
swedish ideas that have been stolen by both russia and the US are LERX from the drakken, canards from the viggen, seat at a 30 degree angle (used in the f 16) to increase the pilot’s g tolerence.

Chris, every country that makes planes and/or helicopters copy ideas from each other such as thrust vectoring, canards, swing wing. occasonally a country will come up with a original idea and you will notice that it then appears on the next generation of aircraft.

Comment by Munzy — June 26, 2006 #
Guys what is wrong with taking others ideas.If something works well or is a great solution why not take it. If no one took anyone’s ideas and had to find out everything by themselves we would sill be in the stone age! Besides the planes just look similar but under the skin they are very different

Comment by nick — July 4, 2006 #
I agree with Nick, why not copy great designs and improve upon them? The quickest way to inefficiency is trying to reinvent everything over again. Russian, American, German and Swedish aviation technology all have good things to borrow from.

Comment by Markus — July 6, 2006 #
The looks might be the same, but the capabilities are completely different. I wont argue about stealing ideas because any designs from cars to airplanes are rebuilt, recopied, and redesigned to improve its capabilities.

Comment by John — July 7, 2006 #
You people are crazy talking about stuff like this! what are you all CIA agents? if so im telling! so i guess ill throw in my 2 cents……… wright brothers…….. they all stole from the US

Comment by Midshipman — July 14, 2006 #
Then you should say that everything was stolen from nature. Jet engines from many sea animals that use the same principles, wings from birds etc.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE to copy technology. Everything is about materials, knoweledge and hard calculations, not shape. Some military journalists noted that US stolen F-15 shape from MiG-25. Yes, ofcourse they look somewhat similar but they are absolutelly diffirent aircraft- one is very fast long range interceptor another is fighter-bomber capable for close combat.
B-1B and Tu-160. Yeah shape is somewhat similar, but who will tell that Tu-160(curently the best and most powerful strategic bomber: 275tons take off weight, over 12000km range without refueling, over 2mach speed, 40tons of ordnance) is copy of B-1b, which is lighter on almost 60 tons, slower(1.2 mach max), and has smaller range?

Comment by Hokum — July 18, 2006 #
Hey Pavel,

I have a few for you:

TU144, yes the Russians were actually first. How many inflight crack ups did it have???

AN-124 kind of reminds me of a C5A, I wonder why?

an IL-76 reminds me of a C141, why???

A Mainstay reminds me of an AWACS, can’t figure out why that is…,

The variable geometry Mig23 and SU 23 came along several years after the FB111 and the F-14.

I wonder which came first, the Flogger or the Harrier???

My favorite of course was the Russian space shuttle…, remind you of anything???

Dude, the list goes on and on. It’s quite clear who lacked the imagination and ability to generate new designs.

Comment by bf-fly — July 29, 2006 #
As for the B-1 and TU-160. Don’t forget that the B1A was a Mach 2 a/c. Of course the 160 is bigger, that’s typical for the Russians. Look at the C5A and the ANT124, look the same just the 124 is bigger. Look at the Russian space shuttle, same design, just a little bigger.

Comment by bf-fly — August 3, 2006 #
I should have said the Forger and Harrier in the above post. The British Krestrel, the direct forerunner of the Harrier first flew in 1964, it’s design study started in 1959. The Forger study was started in 1967

Comment by bf-fly — August 3, 2006 #
Look at;
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/tu160-01.htm

I hadn’t looked at a TU160 for a while, so I googled it.

It couln’t possibly be more of a copy of a B1. The TU160 even has the same tail configuration as the B1. I can tell you as a professional pilot that cruciform tails are few and far between. I can only think of one other a/c off the top of my head that has one. The fact that the nose looks different is a reflection of Soviet electronic equiptment not overall design. It is a typical russian copy plain and simple. Same thing, comes out a decade later, just bigger. Remember the B1A came out in the mid 70’s.

Comment by bf-fly — August 8, 2006 #
All of you mostly welcome to continue your discussion here: Stop thief! forum thread

Thank you

Comment by Pavel — August 11, 2006 #
thats good planes …wao

Comment by Adel — December 1, 2006 #
Copying is in some way sharing an idea. Just cause sweden was the first to put canards on they’re planes it dosent meen were copy cats for puting canards on our planes. It was simply a good idea so we used it two. If we never share (or
as you guys are calling it copying)how could we advance (especially cause of buget cutes and fuel and parts prices incresing). Just look at are companies theve merged (ex: lokheed-Martin) beacase of financial problems. Anyway you can’t call it copying beacause you don’t see any exacte copies not made under lisence (It’s elegal to make an exacted copy or similar copy not under lisence).So I conclude by saying it’s OK to reuse
a good idea. (anyway I don’t know why youre all making such a big deal the F-35 hase one engine that also drive a lift fan wyle the Yak 141 has a tilting main engin and two lift fan to say the desinges are DIFFERENT did you here that DIFFERENT)I speak for both russian and american side even thouthg i’m from negther country

Comment by arc — January 15, 2007 #
Arc’s right it’s just a coincedence

Comment by Ace — January 25, 2007 #
thank you ace

Comment by arc — January 30, 2007 #
ok, for sure the russians copied many things, but how come so many of their designs eg Su 35 are so much better than the americans? the yanks dont have anything which even comes close

Comment by arc/s — March 26, 2007 #
I love the B1. The russians can copy all they want but at the end of the day, their stuff is still inferior. Take the B1 and TU160 for example; the B1 weighs half as much but it an carry nearly twice the payload as the TU160!!!

Comment by Maine — April 7, 2007 #
The Su-35 is NOT superior to anything the US has. Yes it is more manueverable than our previous generation aircraft, ie the F-15 and F-16, but the F-22 is close enough in agility as to be a negligible difference. The point is moot however when you realize the avionics and targeting systems in the F-22 are so far beyond the Su-35 that the ‘Flanker’ would be shot down before it even had a chance to engage the ‘Raptor’. The days of dogfighting are long gone. In fact, the days of the manned fighter-jet are soon to be over. Every modern jet is held back by the one unifying constraint…the pilot. An F-22 is structurally capable of handling what, 20 Gs? No human, even with a G suit, has ever maintained consciousness beyond 12 Gs for any significant duration. What does that tell you? We already have the technology to remotely control our aircraft (Predator) and even engage targets with an unmanned aircraft. The fact is since the F-16 is a fly-by-wire platform, it could easily be converted to unmanned capability in which case it could fly circles around a manned Su-35 or F-22. Now imagine and UNMANNED Su-35 or F-22. That’s the future.

A1C Mark Yang, USAF, 726th ACS

Comment by Mark — May 10, 2007 #
Actually Tu-160 was not a copy of B-1, even it flew later; it was based on Myasishev M-18 project which was developed in late 60ies.
I’ve found some good information in english about it:
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/tu-160/tu-160_his.htm
As for An-124 and Tu-144 - the similarity with their western counterparts is explained by the laws of physics and aerodynamics, which are obligatory for everyone. And please do some serious research before posting “russians-copied-everything) threads, there is enough open information in English to find in Web nowadays

Comment by Dmitri — May 11, 2007 #
well I realize Mr Mark, saw a lot of hollywood movies like “fling tigers” or “Yop Gun” when american pilots allway defeat their enemys, I´t funny how you can say that a plane like a SU-35 is not superior that anithing in US… well problably in dollywood movies body but in a real situation thinds has been quiete diferent,
Ley me remind you, just one axample, 3 years ago US airforce planes and IAF aircreaft from INdia, made a ,aneubres air combat exercises, wer those “inferior” Russian plabes beat in a 3:1 ratio to the US planes, I`m talkin about, SU-30Mk1, Mig.29 an Olds Mig 21, againts your favorite F-15E strike eagle, F-16C, and F-18, you can ask enywhere about this, eveb in the first wulf war a US Navy F-18 was shot down by a old vintage Mig-25, sou Mr. Mark, let me know what are you talking about, US pilot has not a top level oponent since vietnam, so how can you say Russia gas anithing better than US, think twice

Comment by proaudio — May 28, 2007 #
Well hen it comes to war there is more to it then two diffrent planes in the air. You cant rely on one plane. So who has the best all around. A jet doesnt have to be extremely better then the other. Even if the f-22 is slightly better. Then thats enough. If the other planes such as more advanced f-15 is to back it up just a little better then it doesnt matter. Pilots. You can have a better plane but who feeds and trains their pilots better. A dogfight you only need to be a little better and a little smarter to win. Who can refuel better. Who has more support capability. Sounds like alot of emotion in this. Im just a dumb canadian. But seems to me the raptor would win. I think even british did a simulated secnerio and raptor made everything look pretty dumb. You might say thats not real world. Well are opinions are just like that a scenerio. Theres alot more to a battle field then one plane. I think all around since i live to the north of the yanks ill go with they would probably still all around kick anyones butt. I mean eventhough they get in these dumb wars such as vietnam and Iraq. They still technically kicked butt. I mean if your coming and any group of people run and hide then come out like cockroaches anf fire. You got to be doing something to scare them from showing up all brave and everything.lol. I can say i dont like them alot of times but my wife says im doing it out of emotion and im jealous. So hat they got all the money > Even their poor people crack me up complaining. Anyway sorry to get off track. But i think even if the raptor is slightly better for 20 years then it will dominate

Comment by joseph merconia — May 28, 2007 #
I think russian and The u.s have many different designing in their aircrafts , but i know both of them are using other’s nations technology .
i guess both of them are going to copy other technology and design to other countries that they are able to do anything they want!

Comment by Saman — June 3, 2007 #
The F-22 is not proven in a2a combat. Neither is the SU-35. The Su-35 is not the same era of technology as the f-22. Why do some designs for the PAK FA and the J-XX (12/13) look very smiliar to an F-22? Answer me this question?

Comment by John — June 19, 2007 #
ok to settle this us/russia argument. who do yall think would win in a war between themselves? thats right. us. if we copied russias planes thats because WE CAN and there aint ish theyre gonna do about it.

Comment by chris — July 9, 2007 #
Nobody is copying anything , everybody claiming that is stupid . While they may look similar in design , they certainly ARE NOT EVEN NEARLY similar in capability’s , take Tu-160 for example , sure its a little similar to B1 in shape , but look at the capabilities , ITS TWICE more faster , capable of more in every aspect , so talking about stealing things just caus things look similar is pure idiotism

Comment by xDx — July 10, 2007 #
Joint Strike Fighter is a stealth plane and that yak is not. Thats the difference.

Comment by Jimmy — July 25, 2007 #
I don’t think every American sits behind a desk and plots on how to steal Russian designs.

The U.S. is out of the cold war now, and has been for years, instead trying to out do every Soviet threat or counter threat. They now take military into new areas, and into new situations, basiclly, they are starting to move into uncharted territory in avaition history.

Not, stealing every mosseral of tech. from other nations. Cause, it’s impossible to do , it some of those technologies do not exsist, from any nation so far.

Comment by ................................................... — July 25, 2007 #
Now let’s see if I have this right: It was a French man that came up with the concept of using jet propulsion to create a V/STOL aircraft. No one paid attention to him in France, but Sir Stanley Hooker of the UK did. What developed was the Kestrel, the forerunner of the Harrier. The US and the UK joined forces to create a better Harrier, but even the new Harrier lacked that one much sought after capability that both nations wanted in a V/STOL aircraft, supersonic speed.

After the first Harrier was into production the UK continued it’s own work in an effort to create a super sonic Harrier. To this end they developed Plenum chamber burning for the front nozzles and a three baring nozzle system for the rear portion of their single engine fighter. None of these innovations were put to use for the UK, but the Russian employed the three bearing nozzle arrangement for their Yak-141.

When the US and the UK sought again to develop a Mach speed capable V/STOL fighter it was the Lockheed company that was able to produce an aircraft that was a conglomeration of some great ideas and one even greater innovation. First, they embraced the idea of a using a single very powerful low bypass augmented turbo fan engine; common to all modern fighters. To this they applied the three bearing nozzle system originally developed for the UK’s supersonic Harrier, thus allowing main engine thrust to be directed 90 degrees downward for vertical flight. One engine meant simplicity and less weight than using different engines for forward propulsion and vertical lift. But how to balance the lift of the main engine…..?

After much research, of ideas that ranged from impractical to fantastic, they came up with using a separate fan turned 90 degrees and locating it well ahead of, and connected to, the main engine via a drive shaft. Doing this solved several problems at once; using the main engine to power the fan lowered the exhaust temperature of the main engine. Using a ducted counter rotating fan in the forward part of the airframe ensured that the down wash it created for thrust also acted like a wall of cool air that prevented the hot exhaust of the engine from being drawn back into the intakes; which would certainly result in decreased thrust and compressor stalls. Counter rotating fan blade segments meant that undesirable gyroscopic energy would be kept to a minimum and would assist in keeping the aircraft more stable in pitch.

Lockheed did not stop the innovation there though: With the main engine nozzle swivelled downward rotating a portion of the three bearing nozzle left or right provided yaw control in the hover. Pitch control was achieved using a combination of varying the aperture of the engine exhaust nozzle and variable inlet guide vanes in the lift fan. This controlled the amount of power produced by the lift fan and main engine combination, thus balancing their contribution to vertical lift. Roll control was achieved by tapping main engine fan bypass air and routing it though two roll nozzles located mid-span of each wing.

The end result was that all 100% of the thrust and engine power needed for vertical flight and control in the hover, was directed downward as total thrust. It was the balancing of that thrust, provided by the lift fan, the main engine, and the roll posts, all carefully coordinated through a flight control and stability computer, that made the F-35 a true innovation. No puffer ducts like the Harrier and Yak.

Thus the F-35 is in part: An achievement that began when a French man dreamed what was not, a English man who envisioned what could be, a Russian who knew how to make it fly, and an American that saw there was a better way. So you see gentlemen, we all had a part in the development of aviation innovation. We inspired each other to be greater and do greater things! Thank God that there are those who dream, no matter what language they dream in!!! …..and yet we must all thank the great Italian man that inspired it all…, DiVinci

And I bet neither one of us who read this web page had a hand in any of this historic work. So we should either shut up or be more grateful to those who really did the work and research that we all have benefited from, take for granted, and try to come off as if we own it.

Comment by Greg — August 2, 2007 #
Your all wrong,the first real supersonic fighter was designed and built in Canada by Canadians.It was called the AVRO arrow and achieved speeds of mach 1.8 in the year 1959.check it

Comment by Eric de Zeeuw — September 23, 2007 #
nice eric…thats true…the Arrow was an amazing jet. It was an interceptor, but i’m sure after production started they would have adapted other models. What a shame that our neighbours forced us to end it, that may not be official, but come on i wasn’t born yesterday.

Comment by James w — October 24, 2007 #
For all the posturing and pissing contests in the above discussion, I’m American and cheer for my home country and am not surprised when others do too. As for who is the best, I hope it is my nation, and expect my government to do everything possible to be the best, including working from other peoples designs and even stealing from the enemy. Anyone who doesn’t have such expectations for their own country should leave their country and find a better one. Besides, technology no matter what you do develops in similar patterns. All planes follow the same laws of physics and thus have similar layouts, designs, functions. One technological break through leads to another. Nobody invented the engine before the wheel and nobody is going to design a aircraft without the best possible arrow dynamics just to avoid looking like the competition. As far as war winning capability, equipment is incredibly important, but it takes a lot more to win a war than equipment. The Vietcong beat the Americans with pungy sticks. Or rather the social situations undermined the
Americans will to win. Technology was not what defeated Americans, it was to many protesting hippies. No matter how great of equipment Russia has, if the communists have wrecked the economy Russia won’t be able to afford the equipment, and no matter how advanced any plane from Europe is, not a single country in Europe would go to war without American involvement.

Comment by Ian R — November 10, 2007 #
okb mig first tested canard wings on mig 8!
americans do not know anything about aerospace tehnology!they still have to go in open space to put together two equipment parts!russians do that automated 25 years ago!!!in space!!!
and you talk about some predator…flight machine!!!wich is controled without pilot!how many space shutlles still fly in space?!and how many crash!!! P>S:sorry about bad english!!!

Vladan…from serbia!!!

Comment by vladan v — November 24, 2007 #
IIRC, Lockheed actually bought the technology for the 3 bearing swivel nozzle from Yakovlev.

Comment by Sir Saoi — January 27, 2008 #
The Russians generally copied designs from almost every American combat aircraft since the Lend-Lease planes of WW2 to the present…that’s why they built the best spy system in the world…

as for the guy who said that the Indians with MiG-29’s and Su-30’s beat the Yanks with F-15C’s and Block30 F-16’s…you know why?

the yanks were actually not allowed to engage w/ AMRAAm and SPARROW bcuz of stringent ROE…they only shot with the SIDEWINDERS while the indians used their radar missiles all the time…
oh by the way the current mainstay of the Russian radar guided missile fleet is the Vympel R77…called AMRAAMski by western observers bcause of its similarity to the AMRAAM

Comment by bin — March 4, 2008 #
the first (and only) russian shuttle was automated then fine!

it’s still a copy though…with metric measurements and i dunno if russia has UAV capability or if it’s Airforce pilots train by shooting down drones w/ real missiles…maybe they fly their PC’s with Microsoft Flight Simulator…hmmm just a thought…

Comment by bin — March 4, 2008 #
It really doesn’t matter who copies who. No technology or innovation is entirely new in this earth. The basic idea is always found in nature. What matters is who can make the best use of it. U.S.A is far superior to Russia in fighter jets and bombers and aviation as a whole. Just look at F-22 . No Su or MiG or typhoon will beat that. But wait till Israel get one of those. It will even be better.

Comment by Bill — March 13, 2008 #
what a discussion!? you have stolen this, you have copy that…..

guys…in the Laboratories of all Aircraft-building/developing Nations the scientists knowing all about Aircraft-technologies! the Canards were already known by the germans and russians and americans and french and….before WW2! also thrust-vectoring was known (the principles) in the late 40th.and this is the same in many technologies.the knowledge is still there in the labs.
the important question is: how to use this techs and developing it into a practicable and needed!! plane or tank or shuttle or…
when you have a insufficient propeller engine you need a wide wingspan! then you build a double-decker,when you have a good jet-engine then can use a delta-wing ,when you have not a flighbywire you can not use unstable conditions…and so on….
if you have materials like carbon or GFK you can build thinner and stronger wings and tail.so the design depends on the materials and technologies and the objectives rather then the design of some enemy-build…thing.yes of course espionage can help you to develop things more efficient and faster but the skin-design of somewhat is not the thing of interests for spies…

Comment by thomas71berlin — March 30, 2008 #
Bill are u on drugs or sumthin? Isreal s a really poor country that is without the ability to even steal technology and once an f22 is in their air fleet, it’ll already be about 2060 or so and the f22 will be 70 years old

Comment by Ace — April 12, 2008 #
Yes, Americans steal ideas. Everyone stole the jet engine from Germany. Swedish SAAB Drakens are awesome.

However, Americans make extremely good planes. With personal experience I must say that American planes are superior in both maneuverability and speed. Comparing a MIG 29 Fulcrum to a F-15 Eagle. The Eagle is WAY better, even though the idea originated in the MIG.

Comment by John — April 17, 2008 #
Hmm… first comment says F-35 is a copy of the YAK 141.

Although… The YAK 141 was failure and did not land vertically or reach supersonic speeds like it was supposed to. The F-35 can do both.

Comment by Joseph — April 17, 2008 #
Israel wasn’t allowed to buy the Mirage III from Dassault, so they stole the plans and built it themselfs!!! And what about Rafaels shortrange AAMs? Are they not one generation ahead like Russians and South-Africans when it come to off-boresight engagements that other nations are just catching up with now…? Israel is not a poor country, it gets military aid from USA just like Turkey, but they are not poor. It’s the same deal for low-income people in Israel as there is in USA, they are exploited by the rich people and kept down by economic desincentives. So yes there are a lot of poor people in Israel, it does not make it a poor country as there are alot of poor people in the “richest” country in the world!
I have said it before; coming to the same conclution as others are not stealing or copying!
Ferrarri makes F1-cars that draws a striking resemblance to Maclarens F1-cars! Is that stealing or copying?????

Comment by Fredric Nordstrom — April 24, 2008 #
awesome!!!

Comment by chubby! — July 16, 2008 #
Um supercruise, stealth, avionics package, electronic communications package, hands down F-35. As far as better maneverablity yes the Russians have always had better performance in that area. But an F-4 could outclimb and out run a mig. Till the generation 3 aircraft of US design came out. Then its arguable in the differences. As far as copying each other? Yea it happens. Seems the Russian’s always would come out with something similar after the Americans came out with in my opinion. This translates into the Ak-74 from the AK-47 changing caliber size simply because the americans did it and they might be on to something that they (The Russians) are not yet aware of. With that said the Russians still have some better weapon systems than the US which not too many people over here like to admit or even learn about.

Comment by BEK — September 25, 2008 #
So much stupid talking about stealing designs!!!I find it everywhere a comparison between a Russian and an American thing is done.If the Russians really copied all their aircraft and space shuttle designs from USA, as some are claiming here(mostly Americans), then this leads me to understand that during the Cold War USA had the shittiest counter-espionage services in the world and the CIA was an organization full of people paid to do nothing.How does it sounds?
-If you claim that Russia stolen everything from the US then you automatically agree that USA had a shitty secret service at the time.
-If you claim that USA had a very good secret service at the time, then you have to agree that the guys from the secret service really did their jobs, and the Russians couldn’t steal the informations from the US, and they designed everything on their own.
However regarding the Yak-141 and F-35 I’ve heard that there was a cooperation between Yakovlev and Lockheed Martin, so there is no matter of stealing in this case.Good luck with the site Pavel, it’s a very good thing.

Comment by Dracula — November 23, 2008 #
how fast is the f-35 vertical liftoff?

Comment by sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss — March 23, 2009 #
The F-35 is a small single engine F-22; both more or less resemble the F-18. Any likeness to the Yak 141, in regard to the F-35, is only due to the three baring nozzle system where the rear portion bends down. However, most F-35’s won’t even have VTOL capabilities.

Comment by Hay Sue's — May 8, 2009 #
with the comprehensive analysis and criticism above!! i would like to add few of coments regrading each!!!
both russia and us after a lot of practicising, they are now capable of producing figters with a little degree of the variations, becasue an optimum and state of art desing always converges not diverges. a time will come there will not many things a fighter will have to improves!! One thing, i want to add also here that russia the original and genuien for some plane design than america!!! Success goes to the us because of its federation and multi talents from rest of the world in which russia lack…
Thank you very much!!!

Comment by sajjadtiwana — May 28, 2009 #
Good afternoon, I am not generally known for sounding off on these commentaries. However, after reading all of these comments, I just had to. First of all, I am an American. I have been in 30 of the 50 U.S. states and 22 countries. I am an electronics technician by trade (no degrees). Nations have been taking (trading, borrowing, and stealing) from other nations since the beginning of history. (And likely before then.) These nations have then either improved upon, or leapfrogged past, this borrowed technology. Even in some cases, combining something that was brand new yet inferior with something that was great in and of itself to make something even better. If you would like a couple of examples: Rome had her legions and they were very good. What improved their capability beyond proportion was a little sword they took from a defeated enemy (spanish/ carthage) today if someone is asked about a roman weapon, the answer would likely be gladius. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engine worked great in the Spitfire and Hurricane, yet combined with an American designed low altitude attack/ ground support plane, you get the greatest piston engine fighter plane ever: The North American P-51 Mustang. German-American colonials in the 18th century brought a short barreled accurate slow loading weapon with decent range for its time evolved in the backwoods into the Kentucky or Pennsylvania Rifle. Sadly, a great invention of the time died even before its inventor and that was the Ferguson Rifle named after Britsh Major Patrick Ferguson who patented an improvement of an even earlier design borrowed from a French inventor. It was ahead of its time and died on the vine. Major Ferguson was killed at the Battle of King’s Mountain. These are just a few examples of taking, cooperating, and blatantly ignoring improvements that have helped to shape history, I primarily cited American History because it is what I am most familiar with, but there are thousands more examples out there. Instead of attempting to either insult another’s country, recognize that nations seeking economic, political, military and social advantages will borrow from, work with, and attempt to surpass their neighbors, even when they are “friends”.

Comment by Jim — June 19, 2009 #
Copy Russians? Well it’s obvious that you guys don’t have a clue about who copies what. Russians have been stealing everyones tech since Britains first jet engine to the American bomber of WW II. Get your facts straight. Another thing isVSTOL was a British design in the Harrier copied albeit a dismal ship born plane by the then Soviet Union which was all it could do just to not crash on lift off. The F-35 has only one thing in common with the Yak (which is the US means to vomit, how appropriate) and that is it delivers where the Russian bird has always failed in reliability, performance and range, not to mention you need several pilots to fly it because a number of them are going to end up dead because of what a piece of garbage it is.

Comment by 10ringr — July 17, 2009 #
For 10ringr, it seems that you are the one having no clue about who copies what.You didn’t provide any link for your claims, yet I’ll give you one: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/07/world/us-used-romania-to-get-soviet-arms.html?n=Top%2FNews%2FWorld%2FCountries+and+Territories%2FRomania
Read this and stop eating shit about stealing.OOOOhhhhh and not to mention the Adolf Tolkachev affair. And please send me back a link showing that the Soviets had a similar program.

Comment by Dracula — October 3, 2009 #
You need several pilots to fly an Yak-141? Hahaha! You’re funny

Comment by Dracula — October 3, 2009 #
hello thanks my love webloge

Comment by aydin — January 14, 2010 #