I was on the USS Harry W Hill DD-986 when we followed the Minsk for 4 months. We'd go along side at times and wave at each other. The YAK38s would fly for about 17 minutes and land. Always that amount of time, never more. Very interesting time to be in the navy.
Did you know that the Soviets had a very special ejection seat on them. If the plane exceeded certain limits it would automatically shoot it's pilot into the drink !😁
I'm not sure anyone 'feared' this patently under performing and inadequate aircraft! The Harriers, so called, limitations were flagged years after it's introduction when the technology that could have eradicated them was available! An indication of how ground breaking and innovative the Harrier design was is that no one managed to better it for over 50 years!
Yes, the harrier was better, however this aircraft could probably still be effective, and least partially if used correctly. But still, the harrier is way better, rule Britannia!
Hey man. He just finds old pictures and videos of stuff that may or may not pertain to what he is talking about. I think he is learning as he goes along, does his research on it, and writes a report about it. VTOL. He pronounced the letters "V-T-O-L," instead of "v-tall." YAK. Pronounced "Y-A-K" instead of just "yak."
I came here to say the exact same thing. Four Kiev class carriers were built, three for Soviet use and one to be sold to India; the latter was heavily modified to replace the weaponised forecastle with an extended, non-angled flightdeck with a shallow ski-jump, but that was decades later.
This was my thought. Kiev, Minsk & Novorossiysk were similar and had a flat deck, although the video does show the Yak 38s did manage rolling take offs and rolling landings which is fairly advanced.
Most of the problems described were shared to some extent by the Harrier. The Harrier was also accident prone, difficult to maintain, limited in speed and payload,vulnerable to dust/debris blown up from the ground etc. But its usefulness outweighed all of that.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 In real combat throughout the 20th century, supersonic speeds were basically never recorded. Being fast just doesn't give much advantage. If you need to react faster, it's better to build longer-range sensors and missiles rather than faster planes.
The harrier wasn't anywhere near as accident prone as the YAK although it was very difficult to fly with complex controls it required extremely skilled pilots. The harrier had very a very limited hover time 90 seconds at full power because without the air cooling effect in forward flight the engine had to be water cooled using it's small coolant supply very quickly. This was still a far more reliable system than the twin lift engines on the Soviet design which was extremely fragile and prone to sudden unexpected failures at the worst possible time. If a harrier crashed the pilot usually had enough warning to abort his landing or at least eject because he knew he was pushing the aircraft beyond it's limits. When the YAK failed it often did so for no apparent reason with almost no warning.
A ski jump is perfecly sensible for V/STOL vectoring thrust aircraft. Less to go wrong for one. The F14, even when lightly loaded, would drop at the end of the deck as the catapult couldn't fire it off to a decent airspeed.
On a positive note Ai will destroy every company which pushes it including G00gle ! as it churns out endless derivative trash that nobody really wants or needs.
I kicked the Kuwaiti sand off of my boots in 1991 aboard the USS Tarawa. They had Harriers on board, the first time they'd deployed from an LHA. I loved to go up on the Island in my free time and watch them take off and land. A great feat of engineering, no doubt. Now if the Brits could make a decent refrigerator, that would be something.
There was no "ski-jump" ramp on "Minsk" because Yak-38 were used only as VTOLs. On a video at 0:34 is not "Minsk" but a Kuznetsov/Tbilisi/Brezhnev, another carrier project. At 6:11 its not a Yak-38 but Yak-141.
I don't know why I bother but I have pointed out so many errors from the Dark channels. They have great information and great clips, unfortunately that does not mean they are right. It drives me nuts that so many younger people are getting their information from channels that don't bother to make sure they have good information.
@@pfa2000 The P1154 was cancelled in 1965. Say it would have entered service in 1970. That is 54 years ago. I still think the lift fan concept of the F35 is inferior to the Harrier engine approach. The lift fan is dead weight for 95% of the flight. There is no particular reason why a larger Pegasus type engine, using modern materials, could not give 40,000 lb thrust. Maybe the nozzle on the F35 is preferable to the split of the Pegasus, so giving 3 poster rather than 4 poster. There was a far worse error comitted in 1965: The Roman Catholic church, via Nostra aetate, part of Vatican 2, has effectively allowed Islam to infiltrate the West. There is today zero point in having fighter jets, or indeed any military at all, given that the West has effectively committed suicide.
@@MostlyPennyCat Its why russian airlines use ex military pilots, they are used to flying badly made and maintained planes, and less likely to quit....well they are drunk too most of the time as i found out years ago when there :)
The Soviet Kiev class carrier DID NOT have a takeoff ramp! The raised (ramp-like) front section was where the missiles and such were mounted. The flight deck was along the port (left) side of the ship, and was flat. The later Kuznetsov class carriers DID have ramps, however. Russia actually modified the last Kiev class carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov, when they sold it to the Indian Navy. Those modifications included removing all the missiles and turning the front of the ship into a "ski ramp," so India could fly conventional fighters from it.
@@twizz420 it is AI voice. It has probably been trained on the music free voice tracks of the older videos, then given a (also AI generated?) text to read. There's a lot of sounds in this that reveal that it is AI, like the weird hiss it makes between words and the hard "audio edges". Next to spelling VTOL as Vee-Tee-Ohh-Elll.
There are a couple of design points you may hot have had time to mention, although you briefly covered one. The Harrier's Pegasus engine powered four vectoring nozzles, the two forward ones were cold air and the rear two jet exhaust, this can be seen at 3:30 where the blue painted parts of the engine are cold. This meant that the engine would have to fail [did happen] to lose all thrust and control. The Yak relied on the forward two engines being jet, so any FOD or failure when these were in use doomed the jet. The F35B has what looks like a forward jet engine but this is just a fan powered by a shaft from the main engine and uses cold air in much the same way as the forward nozzles on the Harrier worked. If you have a look at a Harrier you will see small rectangles at the front of the air intakes. These are spring loaded and open when the Harrier is at slow speed or hovering. As there is no forward motion the intakes aren't giving enough air to the engine so these allow extra air in. In my time in the RAF I was lucky enough to be streamed to Tornado ADV engines. A favorite 'exercise' for Harrier PMechT's was to have one land in the middle of winter somewhere grim and the order 'right-ho chaps, time to change the engine' given. On the Harrier the wing and upper fusilage was designed to be lifted off as a unit and the engine removed in one lump from the top. Give me a nice, warm hanger any day. One final note is that later Harriers have the stabiliser wheels inboard of the wing tips. The earlier ones had them at the wing tips but the wings were enlarged from [if memory serves] the GR5 onwards.
This account is not interested in stuff like this. I wish people knew that the dark skies and similar accounts are literal copy paste jobs. Then they have AI sponsors on top of that! Insightful comments like yours would do well in a video of your own making or the better information channels out there.
My father - a Hellenic Air Force pilot - flew a lot of reconnaissance missions over the Aegean and East Mediterranean sea in search of the Kiev class carrier/cruiser ships and their Yaks ... He did encountered both many times - he was not impressed at all with the Yak ... but the ship was quite heavily armored with various AA missile systems that commanded respect ...
I was deployed as a young Airman on the USS. Ranger (CV-61) in the 1980's. Like all junior enlisted I was assigned 90 days of TAD orders but was lucky enough to be a dishwasher in the Officer's Mess. That luck was apparent at first but soon after we departed for what turned out to be 121 days at sea straight the Enlisted Messes ran out of fresh meat and dairy. That made me a Cumshaw [Comm-Shaw] (Navy speak for Black-market Trading) God. I still have a few 8x10 glossy prints of a Russian Kiev class carrier with deck full of Forgers and Russian subs traded for a couple patty melts. By the time I was done with my TAD I could have traded food to drive the ship. Those were the days. For those confused by my tag being ScoutSniper3124, I traded my sea legs for Army greens after one hitch and went on to serve after a 12-year break in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Two lives in one. SSG. U.S. Army (Medically Retired) Infantry / Sniper / SOF Intel (SOT-A), multiple tours
Did any Soviet aircraft live up to the West’s fears? Between the Wall coming down and the wat in Ukraine, we’ve seen that Soviet technology wasn’t nearly as good as we thought it was. In a similar manner, we saw in Desert Storm the Soviet doctrine was also seriously flawed.
Su15 was a decent aircraft , which could have given the West a headache ( it shot down Korea 007 airliner) it was never exported and as far as i know whilst it must have intercepted Western aircraft there isn't much reported as to it's potential
MiG-15 was on-par with the Sabre. Sabre was more expensive but more reliable and in a fight they were dead even, with the MiG having slightly better climb and the Sabre having better roll rate. Buran was also a technologically impressive piece of kit, though we'll never know if it would've lived up to the success of it's initial flight.
@@julianturberfield7101 The MiG 17 also proved it's worth during Vietnam ... it did cause the Americans a bit of stress .. Handled well with a skilled pilot it was a dangerous foe .. The American pilots were warned never get into a slow speed turning fight with a 17 .. zoom away and come back
Reminds me of a story from back in 1976. There was the Russian MIG-25, Foxbat fighter that everyone feared. Then a Soviet defector flew one to Japan. When it was examined, what they found was a big nothing.
Will mention im pretty sure the Yak-38 and its variants did not have afterburning engines as mentioned in the video and the M, which was the version with upgraded engines, certainly didnt have afterburner. Though the Yak-141 (Yak-41M) prototype planes did have afterburning engines.
@@georgebarnes8163 The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Яковлев Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was Soviet Naval Aviation's only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for, and served almost exclusively on, the Kiev-class aircraft carriers (heavy aviation cruiser in Russian classification). The Yakovlev Yak-141 (Russian: Яковлев Як-141; NATO reporting name "Freestyle"), also known as the Yak-41, is a Soviet supersonic vertical takeoff/landing (VTOL) fighter aircraft designed by Yakovlev. Intended as a replacement for the Yak-38, it was designed as a supersonic fleet defence fighter capable of STOVL/VTOL operating from Soviet carriers. Four prototypes were built before the project's cancellation. The commentator is right. The Yak 141 was only a prototype. It never became operational.
I attended an air show at Naval Air Station Lamar in Central California many years ago now, 80’s I believe. And for some strange reason they landed a Harrier right in front of the viewing stands. There’s only three times in my life that I heard a noise that nearly blew out my ears and suffered hearing loss because of it. One when the Studio I was working at sent a signal to my headphones that lifted and blew the earmuffs away from my head I woke up on the floor with bleeding ears and a damaged guitar. The second was when I was working on a Solar Mars Gas Turbine Engine when both my earmuffs and ear plugs were sucked right off and out of my head and those little orange ear plugs were compressed and burned and I was in shock as to how loud the suction intake is on a 30,000 HP engine. I really thought I’d never hear again. Then I found myself at that air show and here comes that Harrier closer and louder and closer and louder to the point of pain. Everyone around me was furious. The incredible noise and the engine blast was throwing dirt, dust and rocks everywhere. It lands and throttles down. I didn't hear anybody mention that the Harrier also carries a large volume of water for cooling and it’s hot and steamy and LOUD and then it throttles up and my God couldn’t they have done that at 100 meters away but this thing was 1/3 of that and as it rose magnificently into the sky it darted off and that was that. It was truly an event of some sort. A memory that I shall never forget. But also at this show was an upgraded F+15 that took off and went straight up so fast and high I could barely see it with my binoculars and could swear it touched space. That was incredible. Like watching a rocket launch. And it only took a few minutes. I love that jet. Good times.
You should have tried being next to the runway when an AVRO Vulcan takes off and points its nose to the sky. Not only was it the loudest thing that I've ever heard, but it made it feel like there was an earthquake. This was probably 1982 at RAF Church Fenton airshow. The vibration through the ground was mind-blowing. Coupled with the four Rolls Royce Olympus engines and their signature howl (and I mean a real howling sound), it's a sound never to be forgotten.
I have been underneath a Harrier. At Gloucester airfield there is a public road that crosses the approach. I was too tight fisted to pay the entrance ticket to the airshow, and stood at the side of the road. A Harrier approached very low and very slow. I felt a blast of heat, but the noise was incredible. Painful even with fingers in ears. And it really shakes your intestines too!
I don't think the main engine on the Yak-38 ever used reheat/afterburners. The British found swivelling nozzles equipping with afterburners a difficult feat to pull off.
Cool man, did you make this video with InVideo AI? Can I just make YOUR videos with it now? ... I mean, considering the sponsor it would be a little silly if it was otherwise.
Shit background music at the start. AND no one refers to Yakovlevs as Y. A. K. you simply say ‘yak’. 10:15 You’ve made 2 GLARING errors 1) The Kiev doesn’t have a ski-jump flight deck. 2) It has an angled flight deck. And you certainly should know the difference.
The 38s also didnt have afterburning engines. It's actually fairly hard to find data on the main powerplant. Though its probably from a very basic google search issue. I typed in "Yak-38 engine" and the Lyulka AL-21 showed up which IS an afterburning turbojet, but it was used on the Su-17, 24, a MiG-23 variant, and the Su-27 prototype. The proper engine is the Tumansky R-28 V-300 thrust vectoring engine.
VTOL aircraft by their nature are more difficult to operate and maintain. Throughout the Harrier's (both the AV-8A and B models) service life it has had one of the highest mishap rates of any frontline US fighter in service at the time. I think the one thing that made the Yak-38 especially problematic was the use of 3 engines as oppose to one used by the Harrier. A failure of any engine could lead to uncontrolled flight. So by virtue of having 3 engines, the probability of failure is nearly tripled. Side note, the Kiev class helicopter carriers did not have ski ramps. VTOL aircraft like the Forger, Harrier, and F-35 do not need them for short take offs.
Which says much about US practice given the Royal Navy operated them at a very high mission rate off tiny carriers in open ocean thousands of miles from friendly harbours during the Falklands conflict and did so with very few non combat related losses.(One lost overboard in heavy weather, two lost in a collision and one exploded some distance from the fleet, possibly a covered up blue on blue.)
@@roberthardy3090 I don't know if a direct comparison can be drawn. The ones used by the Marine Corps were based on the original land based versions. The ones that flew in the Falklands were Sea Harriers which were navalised to work in the harsher environment.
In Russian tradition you pronounce it “Yak” as a word, like the animal, not “Y. A. K” Also it’s V/STOL, Vertical/Short Take Off & Landing, not VTOL. Neither the Harrier nor the Yak-38 could take off or land vertically fully armed & fuelled & neither can the F-35 for that matter because it makes them too heavy & unstable. @Dark Skys & yes, it’s pronounced “Sue-25” like the common contraction of Susan & “Mig” like the welder, not “M. I. G”
You do know no truth in that claim. The 141 used a totally different design involving 2 separate lift engines to achieve hover abilities & a larger one for flight. The F35 uses one engine & the Rolls Royce Lift System the F35 has zero connection with the 141.
There’s an old joke from when I used to play an awful lot of dungeons and dragons…. “Oh come on guys, we got these guys totally out gunned and out classed” (1/2 hour later, pinned into a tight corner and running low on ammo and spells) “Wow… sure are a lot of these little bastards, aren’t there!” Quantity has a quality all of its own.
I read the book A Game of Titans that features these Soviet VTOLs; the story made them seem powerful, but real research turned up how bad their shortcomings were. I guess a fiction story is the only way these weapons can be super.
I've heard, and correct me if I am wrong. But the Harrier now has nose and tail and wing tip stabilizing jet nozzles? So its easier to go vertical? That's what I've heard at least.
Having operated from Big-E during this period I can confirm NO USN aviator ever "feared" the YAK. Original plan was to conduct training flights of traditional War-At-Sea to a target spar pulled behind the USN destroyer shadowing the Soviet fleet. US State Department prohibited normal USN tactics and required "close control" (2-say voice radio) with all transponders and radars active and "mid-high altitude" profiles... in 1980s NONE of this was our normal tactics. First "Alpha Strike" was recalled twice (started overhead CVN65, depart, recall to overhead, repeat and repeat again). This was due to YAK aircraft launching upon detection of USN planes inbound. The third attempt completed successfully as NO YAK aircraft took off to defend Soviet fleet. BG-F then completed 2-a-day Alpha Strikes on the target spar while avoiding Soviet detection (they saw the planes, but never found the Battle Group). After 10 days, BG-F ceased the exercise as by then we were conducting true USN tactical WAS strikes (low altitude, high speed, no radios, no radar, etc.) without Soviet fleet knowing what was coming until the first plane flew overhead... after dropping practice "bombs" on the target spar.
Interesting and pretty comprehensive study, thank you ! NB: the Yak brand is normally pronounced like "yack" not Y-A-K, just like MiG is "mig", not M-I-G, Ilyushin's Il are "eel" not I-L. But is your odd pronunciation the fault of some AI voice ?
In the early 80s, did all the Kiev class carriers have a 'ski jump' in the front of their flight deck? Most of the models I saw only showed the flight deck to be flat. Thank you
@@diegomorata2885 Work well for him in 1941-42. Don't forget that Soviets have allies who supplied them and fought air and ocean war with nazies. Just imagine if Germany didn't hold more then half of airplanes on West and produced tanks instead of submarines.
Not "y-a-k" jets. Many Russian airplanes are "Yak" (fill in the type). Yak is the first three letters of the designers name. Yak rhymes with jack or hack. That's the way you say it. Patrick Cowdrey, Central Point, Oregon, Commercial Pilot since the 60s.
The Yak 38 was indeed bad, and the F-35B has borrowed Yakovlev's VSTOL (wrong) concept (one cruising engine + one or more auxiliary engines for TO/L that double as dead weight/space waste during the rest of the mission).
The thing that gets me is that some of the combat deficiencies of the Harrier resolved through avionics with the British Sea Harrier it was the ferranti blue vixen radar and with the Marine corps av8b Harrier II plus it was a shaved APG 66 radar both radar sets gave the respected Harrier variant bvr capability via the aim 120 missile You can't tell me the Russians couldn't have crammed A fire control radar a semi-active air-to-air missile As for the rest of the design the payload stunk so did the range and it didn't do anything particularly well including takeoff and land
The Soviet Navy had a similar problem that the Army did. No professional NCO’s. Only conscripts and officers. Nearly all of senior NCO’s were not bright or alcoholics who couldn’t survive outside the military.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Try InVideo AI for free and use our code DARKSKIES50 to get twice the number of video creation minutes in your first month: invideo.io/i/DarkSkies
Seriously? You're a creator, and you're plugging this BS AI junk? Are you really that oblivious?
Vertical take of and some of the mechanical feature on this plane look just like the F35
😊😊
😊😊😊
Looks like the VTOL F35 copied the Yak 31.
I was on the USS Harry W Hill DD-986 when we followed the Minsk for 4 months. We'd go along side at times and wave at each other. The YAK38s would fly for about 17 minutes and land. Always that amount of time, never more. Very interesting time to be in the navy.
Did you know that the Soviets had a very special ejection seat on them. If the plane exceeded certain limits it would automatically shoot it's pilot into the drink !😁
No you were not
@@kirtflesher1603I was
That’s so cool. What a sight that would have been. Great story, thanks.
Were you in the navy or the "wavey"😂...how'd the "brass" feel about treating "enemy" as actual human beings?
I'm not sure anyone 'feared' this patently under performing and inadequate aircraft! The Harriers, so called, limitations were flagged years after it's introduction when the technology that could have eradicated them was available! An indication of how ground breaking and innovative the Harrier design was is that no one managed to better it for over 50 years!
Indeed!. o let us with gusto, give voice, to "Rule Britannia"
Cheers and tally ho, lad.
Yes, the harrier was better, however this aircraft could probably still be effective, and least partially if used correctly.
But still, the harrier is way better, rule Britannia!
They feared it when it was revealed, after everyone got a good look at it not so much.
Interesting, but the music is too loud, do we even need music?
Agree... stopped watching it after a few minutes because of the music.
No we don't thank you!
Hate to point this out, but the Kiev class vessels DID NOT have a ski jump ramp to assist in take offs.
Hey man. He just finds old pictures and videos of stuff that may or may not pertain to what he is talking about. I think he is learning as he goes along, does his research on it, and writes a report about it. VTOL. He pronounced the letters "V-T-O-L," instead of "v-tall." YAK. Pronounced "Y-A-K" instead of just "yak."
The AI got it wrong
I was as sailor on KIEV board in 1988!
I came here to say the exact same thing. Four Kiev class carriers were built, three for Soviet use and one to be sold to India; the latter was heavily modified to replace the weaponised forecastle with an extended, non-angled flightdeck with a shallow ski-jump, but that was decades later.
This was my thought. Kiev, Minsk & Novorossiysk were similar and had a flat deck, although the video does show the Yak 38s did manage rolling take offs and rolling landings which is fairly advanced.
I can do without the music. At least at that volume.
Thanks for your polite input
It must be a copyright thing yeah?
Most of the problems described were shared to some extent by the Harrier. The Harrier was also accident prone, difficult to maintain, limited in speed and payload,vulnerable to dust/debris blown up from the ground etc. But its usefulness outweighed all of that.
So, the Harrier, by comparison, had no problems.....
Lack of speed didn't seem to hinder the Barriers much in the Falklands against the Mirages.
They ironed alot of those issues out. Every new weapons got issues, teething problems.
@@patrickgriffitt6551 In real combat throughout the 20th century, supersonic speeds were basically never recorded. Being fast just doesn't give much advantage. If you need to react faster, it's better to build longer-range sensors and missiles rather than faster planes.
The harrier wasn't anywhere near as accident prone as the YAK although it was very difficult to fly with complex controls it required extremely skilled pilots. The harrier had very a very limited hover time 90 seconds at full power because without the air cooling effect in forward flight the engine had to be water cooled using it's small coolant supply very quickly. This was still a far more reliable system than the twin lift engines on the Soviet design which was extremely fragile and prone to sudden unexpected failures at the worst possible time. If a harrier crashed the pilot usually had enough warning to abort his landing or at least eject because he knew he was pushing the aircraft beyond it's limits. When the YAK failed it often did so for no apparent reason with almost no warning.
I love how everyone else is like “ski jump ramps make sense,” and America is all, “hold my beer while I show you how fast I can throw a jet.”
and now they are effectively SHOOTING a jet off the deck of the new Ford class with what is effectively a railgun
@ yeah I remember when the steam sling tech was classified, then everyone found out. “You used seawater and nuclear reactor to do what!”
The British invented steam catapults.
A ski jump is perfecly sensible for V/STOL vectoring thrust aircraft. Less to go wrong for one. The F14, even when lightly loaded, would drop at the end of the deck as the catapult couldn't fire it off to a decent airspeed.
Jets taking off from a ramp cannot carry as much armament or fuel.
this sponsor is a bad sign
yep. for 20 bucks a month anyone can make lazy yt videos that we see popping up everywhere now.
@@kountrygunz2032Agreed and well said. This channel is the apathy of production.
UA-cam is boring these days
On a positive note Ai will destroy every company which pushes it including G00gle ! as it churns out endless derivative trash that nobody really wants or needs.
The 'music' too
I kicked the Kuwaiti sand off of my boots in 1991 aboard the USS Tarawa. They had Harriers on board, the first time they'd deployed from an LHA. I loved to go up on the Island in my free time and watch them take off and land. A great feat of engineering, no doubt. Now if the Brits could make a decent refrigerator, that would be something.
"Now if the Brits could make a decent refrigerator, that would be something."
Why would we, we like warm beer!
Oh man I remember the disgusted looks the navy gave us when we got back on the Kearsarge after Iraq ‘03. I’ll never forget those looks 😂
There was no "ski-jump" ramp on "Minsk" because Yak-38 were used only as VTOLs. On a video at 0:34 is not "Minsk" but a Kuznetsov/Tbilisi/Brezhnev, another carrier project.
At 6:11 its not a Yak-38 but Yak-141.
These are the errors I totally expect from this creator in all of his projects.
I don't know why I bother but I have pointed out so many errors from the Dark channels. They have great information and great clips, unfortunately that does not mean they are right. It drives me nuts that so many younger people are getting their information from channels that don't bother to make sure they have good information.
It is a shame that the supersonic Harrier was cancelled.
It and its capabilities, like it's VTOL, have found their replacements and vastly more, in the form of the Mark II F-35.
The concept; i.e., "supersonic harrier" was DOA....
Design wouldn't have worked.
With F-35 arriving 40+ years later.
@@pfa2000 The P1154 was cancelled in 1965. Say it would have entered service in 1970. That is 54 years ago. I still think the lift fan concept of the F35 is inferior to the Harrier engine approach. The lift fan is dead weight for 95% of the flight. There is no particular reason why a larger Pegasus type engine, using modern materials, could not give 40,000 lb thrust. Maybe the nozzle on the F35 is preferable to the split of the Pegasus, so giving 3 poster rather than 4 poster.
There was a far worse error comitted in 1965: The Roman Catholic church, via Nostra aetate, part of Vatican 2, has effectively allowed Islam to infiltrate the West. There is today zero point in having fighter jets, or indeed any military at all, given that the West has effectively committed suicide.
The YAK38 never scared anyone
Never met any of the pilots then! 😂
@@MostlyPennyCat russian pilots can only fly when drunk...their army tried the same which is why they ran away from Kyiv :)
@@betsm5842
And now we know WHY they have to be drunk, Dutch courage to fly this disaster! 😂
@@MostlyPennyCat Its why russian airlines use ex military pilots, they are used to flying badly made and maintained planes, and less likely to quit....well they are drunk too most of the time as i found out years ago when there :)
@@MostlyPennyCat LOL Good One
The Soviet carriers the Yak flew off didn’t have a ski jump.
The Soviet Kiev class carrier DID NOT have a takeoff ramp! The raised (ramp-like) front section was where the missiles and such were mounted. The flight deck was along the port (left) side of the ship, and was flat. The later Kuznetsov class carriers DID have ramps, however. Russia actually modified the last Kiev class carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov, when they sold it to the Indian Navy. Those modifications included removing all the missiles and turning the front of the ship into a "ski ramp," so India could fly conventional fighters from it.
Are the dark skies and dark series videos written by AI?
I don't know, but they've been at this for a long time, so I would like to say that this is a real person?
Paper Skies: Regurgitation Edition
yes
Most likely, the real person uses a lot of AI to create them.
People call them Vee-Toll, Vee-Tee-Oh-Elle is a new one for me🤖
I love the content but 5 commercials on a 17 minute video is a bit much.
If you are trying to make your video impossible to understand, congratulations! With this loud music all way along, you are doing it right!
Although a little louder than normal, I could hear him fine over the music.
I had no issues hearing and understanding
And I want to know more about the music. Who is it?
Fine for me
Great vid. Shame about the intrusive 'music'.
JESUS CHRIST AI ADVERTISING AN AI APP IS CRAZY
This isn't AI. The fact that 95% of people don't have any idea what AI looks or sounds like is more crazy
@@twizz420 Well, the way it reads "Yak-38" is definitely not human. No person even slightly aware of the topic would ever spell that name.
@@twizz420 it is AI voice. It has probably been trained on the music free voice tracks of the older videos, then given a (also AI generated?) text to read. There's a lot of sounds in this that reveal that it is AI, like the weird hiss it makes between words and the hard "audio edges". Next to spelling VTOL as Vee-Tee-Ohh-Elll.
I'm fairly sure the (bad) text is AI-generated as well as the voice.
@@twizz420 Perhaps you don't know.
I cannot imagine how nervous I'd be to sit in a Soviet automatic ejection seat.
There are a couple of design points you may hot have had time to mention, although you briefly covered one.
The Harrier's Pegasus engine powered four vectoring nozzles, the two forward ones were cold air and the rear two jet exhaust, this can be seen at 3:30 where the blue painted parts of the engine are cold. This meant that the engine would have to fail [did happen] to lose all thrust and control. The Yak relied on the forward two engines being jet, so any FOD or failure when these were in use doomed the jet.
The F35B has what looks like a forward jet engine but this is just a fan powered by a shaft from the main engine and uses cold air in much the same way as the forward nozzles on the Harrier worked.
If you have a look at a Harrier you will see small rectangles at the front of the air intakes. These are spring loaded and open when the Harrier is at slow speed or hovering. As there is no forward motion the intakes aren't giving enough air to the engine so these allow extra air in.
In my time in the RAF I was lucky enough to be streamed to Tornado ADV engines. A favorite 'exercise' for Harrier PMechT's was to have one land in the middle of winter somewhere grim and the order 'right-ho chaps, time to change the engine' given. On the Harrier the wing and upper fusilage was designed to be lifted off as a unit and the engine removed in one lump from the top. Give me a nice, warm hanger any day.
One final note is that later Harriers have the stabiliser wheels inboard of the wing tips. The earlier ones had them at the wing tips but the wings were enlarged from [if memory serves] the GR5 onwards.
Great detailed info from someone who does know, not speculate or regurgitate from something they read.
Thank you, merci beaucoup. muchas gracias
This account is not interested in stuff like this. I wish people knew that the dark skies and similar accounts are literal copy paste jobs. Then they have AI sponsors on top of that! Insightful comments like yours would do well in a video of your own making or the better information channels out there.
My father - a Hellenic Air Force pilot - flew a lot of reconnaissance missions over the Aegean and East Mediterranean sea in search of the Kiev class carrier/cruiser ships and their Yaks ... He did encountered both many times - he was not impressed at all with the Yak ... but the ship was quite heavily armored with various AA missile systems that commanded respect ...
Although a lot of the info is wrong or inaccurate in these videos, I do like the tone of the narration and love all Cold War stories.
It’s my understanding that vertical takeoff jets fly subsonic because of the weight and configuration of their engines
03:01 ad skip
I was deployed as a young Airman on the USS. Ranger (CV-61) in the 1980's. Like all junior enlisted I was assigned 90 days of TAD orders but was lucky enough to be a dishwasher in the Officer's Mess. That luck was apparent at first but soon after we departed for what turned out to be 121 days at sea straight the Enlisted Messes ran out of fresh meat and dairy.
That made me a Cumshaw [Comm-Shaw] (Navy speak for Black-market Trading) God. I still have a few 8x10 glossy prints of a Russian Kiev class carrier with deck full of Forgers and Russian subs traded for a couple patty melts. By the time I was done with my TAD I could have traded food to drive the ship. Those were the days.
For those confused by my tag being ScoutSniper3124, I traded my sea legs for Army greens after one hitch and went on to serve after a 12-year break in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Two lives in one.
SSG. U.S. Army (Medically Retired) Infantry / Sniper / SOF Intel (SOT-A), multiple tours
Great. A criminal in our military. Lovely.
@@brianhaygood183Better to have a “criminal” fighting for you then against you.
Thank you for your service. Sounds incredible man. Oh I bet the stories you could tell. 😂
Sounds great. Probably valuable experience for later entrepeneurship.
What’s TAD?
Loved the short glimpse of the RAF Wildenrath sign, reminds me of the good times!
Did any Soviet aircraft live up to the West’s fears? Between the Wall coming down and the wat in Ukraine, we’ve seen that Soviet technology wasn’t nearly as good as we thought it was. In a similar manner, we saw in Desert Storm the Soviet doctrine was also seriously flawed.
Su15 was a decent aircraft , which could have given the West a headache ( it shot down Korea 007 airliner) it was never exported and as far as i know whilst it must have intercepted Western aircraft there isn't much reported as to it's potential
MiG-15 was on-par with the Sabre. Sabre was more expensive but more reliable and in a fight they were dead even, with the MiG having slightly better climb and the Sabre having better roll rate. Buran was also a technologically impressive piece of kit, though we'll never know if it would've lived up to the success of it's initial flight.
IIRC, the MiG-21 did prove to the Americans that they still need a close quarter combat machine gun, as Phantoms did not have it equipped
@@emperorcokelord1021 and the Mig17 which proved a bit of a headache to the Americans
@@julianturberfield7101 The MiG 17 also proved it's worth during Vietnam ... it did cause the Americans a bit of stress .. Handled well with a skilled pilot it was a dangerous foe .. The American pilots were warned never get into a slow speed turning fight with a 17 .. zoom away and come back
Reminds me of a story from back in 1976. There was the Russian MIG-25, Foxbat fighter that everyone feared. Then a Soviet defector flew one to Japan. When it was examined, what they found was a big nothing.
Yak 141 Hell ya thats a monster no doubt and be awesome to see a video on that one.
Will mention im pretty sure the Yak-38 and its variants did not have afterburning engines as mentioned in the video and the M, which was the version with upgraded engines, certainly didnt have afterburner. Though the Yak-141 (Yak-41M) prototype planes did have afterburning engines.
Not the only Soviet STOVL aircraft, there was also the Yak 141
The Yak-38 was the only STOVL to enter service with the Russian military. None of the others ever saw military service.
@@davidwood2205 Commentator stated the Yak 38 was the only STOVL aircraft the Soviets had, that is incorrect.
Which is discussed in the video, FWIW.
@@georgebarnes8163
The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Яковлев Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was Soviet Naval Aviation's only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for, and served almost exclusively on, the Kiev-class aircraft carriers (heavy aviation cruiser in Russian classification).
The Yakovlev Yak-141 (Russian: Яковлев Як-141; NATO reporting name "Freestyle"), also known as the Yak-41, is a Soviet supersonic vertical takeoff/landing (VTOL) fighter aircraft designed by Yakovlev. Intended as a replacement for the Yak-38, it was designed as a supersonic fleet defence fighter capable of STOVL/VTOL operating from Soviet carriers. Four prototypes were built before the project's cancellation.
The commentator is right. The Yak 141 was only a prototype. It never became operational.
@@bkk115 Just because the 41 didn't entered service doesn't mean the 38 was the only Soviet VTOL. So the commentator was not right!
This guy must say, M. I. G. instead of Mig…..
It's not a guy, it's an AI voiceover.
I attended an air show at Naval Air Station Lamar in Central California many years ago now, 80’s I believe. And for some strange reason they landed a Harrier right in front of the viewing stands. There’s only three times in my life that I heard a noise that nearly blew out my ears and suffered hearing loss because of it. One when the Studio I was working at sent a signal to my headphones that lifted and blew the earmuffs away from my head I woke up on the floor with bleeding ears and a damaged guitar. The second was when I was working on a Solar Mars Gas Turbine Engine when both my earmuffs and ear plugs were sucked right off and out of my head and those little orange ear plugs were compressed and burned and I was in shock as to how loud the suction intake is on a 30,000 HP engine. I really thought I’d never hear again. Then I found myself at that air show and here comes that Harrier closer and louder and closer and louder to the point of pain. Everyone around me was furious. The incredible noise and the engine blast was throwing dirt, dust and rocks everywhere. It lands and throttles down. I didn't hear anybody mention that the Harrier also carries a large volume of water for cooling and it’s hot and steamy and LOUD and then it throttles up and my God couldn’t they have done that at 100 meters away but this thing was 1/3 of that and as it rose magnificently into the sky it darted off and that was that. It was truly an event of some sort. A memory that I shall never forget. But also at this show was an upgraded F+15 that took off and went straight up so fast and high I could barely see it with my binoculars and could swear it touched space. That was incredible. Like watching a rocket launch. And it only took a few minutes. I love that jet. Good times.
I "heard" that... 🦻
You should have tried being next to the runway when an AVRO Vulcan takes off and points its nose to the sky. Not only was it the loudest thing that I've ever heard, but it made it feel like there was an earthquake. This was probably 1982 at RAF Church Fenton airshow. The vibration through the ground was mind-blowing. Coupled with the four Rolls Royce Olympus engines and their signature howl (and I mean a real howling sound), it's a sound never to be forgotten.
Lemoore
I have been underneath a Harrier. At Gloucester airfield there is a public road that crosses the approach. I was too tight fisted to pay the entrance ticket to the airshow, and stood at the side of the road. A Harrier approached very low and very slow. I felt a blast of heat, but the noise was incredible. Painful even with fingers in ears. And it really shakes your intestines too!
You heard that band called tenitus? Yeah me neither, but I hear they’re great!
The first jet powered VTOL aircraft the UK had was the Short SC1 not the Harrier
I don't think the main engine on the Yak-38 ever used reheat/afterburners. The British found swivelling nozzles equipping with afterburners a difficult feat to pull off.
Cool man, did you make this video with InVideo AI? Can I just make YOUR videos with it now?
... I mean, considering the sponsor it would be a little silly if it was otherwise.
Shit background music at the start. AND no one refers to Yakovlevs as Y. A. K. you simply say ‘yak’.
10:15 You’ve made 2 GLARING errors 1) The Kiev doesn’t have a ski-jump flight deck. 2) It has an angled flight deck. And you certainly should know the difference.
He does!
@@oxcart4172he refers to an angled flight deck as a ski jump. As you look at the Kiev, you can clearly see that’s wrong.
The 38s also didnt have afterburning engines. It's actually fairly hard to find data on the main powerplant. Though its probably from a very basic google search issue. I typed in "Yak-38 engine" and the Lyulka AL-21 showed up which IS an afterburning turbojet, but it was used on the Su-17, 24, a MiG-23 variant, and the Su-27 prototype. The proper engine is the Tumansky R-28 V-300 thrust vectoring engine.
@@alannewman85
I was referring to your comment that nobody says 'Y.A.K. that's all. He obviously does!
you really don't have to watch @alan... your criticism is not constructive... make your own videos if you think you can do better...
Nobody feared this fighter...except their pilots.
Why the wild hyperbole in your titles?
Because clickbait is useful to get more views
@@aydincakiroglu1665
It also turns a lot of intelligent viewers away.
If they resort to hyperbole how can you trust their "Facts"?
With the addition 'until they saw it in action.'
At 0:20 into the video showing tail of the YAK with a Sea King Helicopter in the background. Can you speak louder to overcome the music!!!
Great video ty
VTOL aircraft by their nature are more difficult to operate and maintain. Throughout the Harrier's (both the AV-8A and B models) service life it has had one of the highest mishap rates of any frontline US fighter in service at the time.
I think the one thing that made the Yak-38 especially problematic was the use of 3 engines as oppose to one used by the Harrier. A failure of any engine could lead to uncontrolled flight. So by virtue of having 3 engines, the probability of failure is nearly tripled.
Side note, the Kiev class helicopter carriers did not have ski ramps. VTOL aircraft like the Forger, Harrier, and F-35 do not need them for short take offs.
Which says much about US practice given the Royal Navy operated them at a very high mission rate off tiny carriers in open ocean thousands of miles from friendly harbours during the Falklands conflict and did so with very few non combat related losses.(One lost overboard in heavy weather, two lost in a collision and one exploded some distance from the fleet, possibly a covered up blue on blue.)
@@roberthardy3090 I don't know if a direct comparison can be drawn. The ones used by the Marine Corps were based on the original land based versions. The ones that flew in the Falklands were Sea Harriers which were navalised to work in the harsher environment.
In Russian tradition you pronounce it “Yak” as a word, like the animal, not “Y. A. K” Also it’s V/STOL, Vertical/Short Take Off & Landing, not VTOL. Neither the Harrier nor the Yak-38 could take off or land vertically fully armed & fuelled & neither can the F-35 for that matter because it makes them too heavy & unstable. @Dark Skys
& yes, it’s pronounced “Sue-25” like the common contraction of Susan & “Mig” like the welder, not “M. I. G”
It's amazing how cutting edge the UK used to be
To think the Yak 141 is the predecessor to the F35
You do know no truth in that claim. The 141 used a totally different design involving 2 separate lift engines to achieve hover abilities & a larger one for flight. The F35 uses one engine & the Rolls Royce Lift System the F35 has zero connection with the 141.
There's no point watching these videos, they're riddled with errors.
My thoughts exactly😂
"Can we have Harrier, comrade?"
"We have Harrier at home."
Its always fun realizing how hapless and inept the Soviet Unions paper tiger military actually was.
then you know nothing ! there is this thing called PROPAGANDA. you should check the meaning of it.
There’s an old joke from when I used to play an awful lot of dungeons and dragons….
“Oh come on guys, we got these guys totally out gunned and out classed”
(1/2 hour later, pinned into a tight corner and running low on ammo and spells)
“Wow… sure are a lot of these little bastards, aren’t there!”
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
@6:10 -- I'm fairly sure that's footage of the Yak-141, which was a proposed supersonic follow-on to the Yak-38, but never went into production.
I read the book A Game of Titans that features these Soviet VTOLs; the story made them seem powerful, but real research turned up how bad their shortcomings were.
I guess a fiction story is the only way these weapons can be super.
The engine MTBF was 22 hours. A bit more nowadays.
I was not in a secret space navy unit, nor did I have any knowledge of such a thing being in existence.
"Yak" is simply short for Yakovlev. It is no three letter acronym.
Forger, the much vaunted Mast Defence Fighter. The more I see of Soviet kit, the more I wonder what we were worried about!
Better audio...hooray!
I've heard, and correct me if I am wrong. But the Harrier now has nose and tail and wing tip stabilizing jet nozzles? So its easier to go vertical? That's what I've heard at least.
Having operated from Big-E during this period I can confirm NO USN aviator ever "feared" the YAK. Original plan was to conduct training flights of traditional War-At-Sea to a target spar pulled behind the USN destroyer shadowing the Soviet fleet. US State Department prohibited normal USN tactics and required "close control" (2-say voice radio) with all transponders and radars active and "mid-high altitude" profiles... in 1980s NONE of this was our normal tactics. First "Alpha Strike" was recalled twice (started overhead CVN65, depart, recall to overhead, repeat and repeat again). This was due to YAK aircraft launching upon detection of USN planes inbound. The third attempt completed successfully as NO YAK aircraft took off to defend Soviet fleet. BG-F then completed 2-a-day Alpha Strikes on the target spar while avoiding Soviet detection (they saw the planes, but never found the Battle Group). After 10 days, BG-F ceased the exercise as by then we were conducting true USN tactical WAS strikes (low altitude, high speed, no radios, no radar, etc.) without Soviet fleet knowing what was coming until the first plane flew overhead... after dropping practice "bombs" on the target spar.
'The Soviet Fighter Everyone Feared - Until They Saw It In Acton'
wasn't that every Soviet plane developed from the 70s till today 😂😂
from 6:09 to 6:17, I saw the construction of the prototype of the Yak-141, the second generation of jump jets.
There is footage out there somewhere of a Yak-38 having a flameout about 60’ above the deck and turning into a flaming pancake.
Love your videos always interesting and educational ❤
The fighter that nobody feared!
Ah the Soviet armed forces look so good on paper
There was cooperation between Yakolev, and Lockheed Martin in the development of the F-35 regarding the lift engine concept.
There was no springboard on the TAVKR Minsk ,and the flight deck was flat.
Interesting and pretty comprehensive study, thank you !
NB: the Yak brand is normally pronounced like "yack" not Y-A-K, just like MiG is "mig", not M-I-G, Ilyushin's Il are "eel" not I-L. But is your odd pronunciation the fault of some AI voice ?
That title covers most Soviet aircraft.
Guess this means there will be more AI originated content on this channel now
“…boosting its combat effectiveness.”
If you multiply zero…you still get zero
In the early 80s, did all the Kiev class carriers have a 'ski jump' in the front of their flight deck? Most of the models I saw only showed the flight deck to be flat. Thank you
Most? Both?
@ the first 3 Kiev, Minsk and Novorossiysk for sure. I am not sure about Baku.
The Soviet Union's military was a paper tiger.......ALL OF IT......a paper tiger.
The commie playbook pads the pockets of the authorities in the name of the state...Paper is all they had left...
Russias still is.
Except for them pesky nukes they have. Even though they might not work very well.
Didn't Hitler say the same thing😂. How did it work out for him after he had the greatest army on earth only for them to perish
@@diegomorata2885 Work well for him in 1941-42. Don't forget that Soviets have allies who supplied them and fought air and ocean war with nazies. Just imagine if Germany didn't hold more then half of airplanes on West and produced tanks instead of submarines.
Not "y-a-k" jets. Many Russian airplanes are "Yak" (fill in the type). Yak is the first three letters of the designers name. Yak rhymes with jack or hack. That's the way you say it. Patrick Cowdrey, Central Point, Oregon, Commercial Pilot since the 60s.
I'm afraid your explanation wouldn't help. It was AI voiceover.
the mispronciation of vtol is far worse to me
The only ones fearing the Yak 38, was the pilots
The Yak 38 can’t have been that bad, as it seems to be used as a template for the F-35B
The Yak 38 was indeed bad, and the F-35B has borrowed Yakovlev's VSTOL (wrong) concept (one cruising engine + one or more auxiliary engines for TO/L that double as dead weight/space waste during the rest of the mission).
AI likes to call the sea "the vast expanse" and the warships are always "bristling with guns" ...
The Yak-38 tortured it's pilots more then the enemy..
'Yay comrades!' LOL.
UA-cam interrupted the ad to play another ad😆
Was gonna say "only VTOL aircraft???" And then found out the yak 141 never entered service
The thing that gets me is that some of the combat deficiencies of the Harrier resolved through avionics with the British Sea Harrier it was the ferranti blue vixen radar and with the Marine corps av8b Harrier II plus it was a shaved APG 66 radar both radar sets gave the respected Harrier variant bvr capability via the aim 120 missile
You can't tell me the Russians couldn't have crammed A fire control radar a semi-active air-to-air missile
As for the rest of the design the payload stunk so did the range and it didn't do anything particularly well including takeoff and land
Can you imagine one of these against a Harrier in Anger ..only one winner
The Soviet Navy had a similar problem that the Army did. No professional NCO’s. Only conscripts and officers. Nearly all of senior NCO’s were not bright or alcoholics who couldn’t survive outside the military.
Funny that the unimportant side project of the USA called F-35 uses an engine that was based on the Yak-141 engine.
russians developed Yak-141 later with specific rear nozzle design wich later on was implemented on F-35.
The Soviets 'borrowed' the Yak-141's rotating rear nozzle from the American Convair Model 200 prototype.
Yak-141 program got into cooperation with US, which unfortunately led to the transfer of technology that was later used in F-35 program.
It would be a fine addition to the Elbonian airforce
They only ones scared of it were the pilots flying it.
So tell me again why it was feared . I can wait .
The clip at 6:07 is the YAK 141 (41) Freestyle.
I see a Yak-141 prototype at the 6:10 mark
The title can apply to any Soviet fighter after the mig 21
Nostalgic to see harrierskyv
video is a bit loud no?
Nice!
I like the new tunes... but for the love of god, please bring back Dark Radio!
some of the video is of the Yak-141 which, in a strange turn of events, is like the weird uncle of the F-35
Looks like Lunar Module trainer that Neil Armstrong ejected from.
didnt know this thing could carry weapons
The AI generated music is doing wonders to the video, for AI audience.