Is this truth?

The first plane was American so therefor every airplane is just a copy of the Wright Flyer. Why can't the rest of the world do anything for themselves?

>avoiding the argument
pretty cute considering you completely avoid the argument i put forth that attempts to follow your own logic that the russia is not capable of finalizing their own aircraft and getting it in warfighting order and are forced to sell it off to other countries that can because they're so dirt poor.
that's the real clockwork, the constant weak deflection of a vatnik.

just because they both have vtol capability doesn't mean that they're the same. the wright brothers were the first to fly, does that mean every russian airframe is just a cheap copy of superior american engineering? following your logic the answer to that would be yes.

leaving this thread because it's the same non-arguments and thinly veiled troll attempts.

>just because they both have vtol capability doesn't mean that they're the same. the wright brothers were the first to fly, does that mean every russian airframe is just a cheap copy of superior american engineering? following your logic the answer to that would be yes.
ahhah... but they look the same. have you seen VTOL before Yak-43? They all looked like Harrier's VTOL. But Yak changed all that.

let' me repeat the obvious: LOCKHEED PAID FOR YAK-43!

this is not up to debate! they paid for it and incorporated it into F-35. they wouldn't have bought it otherwise.

Attached: 1550808172428.jpg (500x400, 30K)

Wrightmind.
Ground-restricted brainlet nations BTFO

Attached: 031217-F-9999D-001.jpg (780x520, 36K)

Legendary Skunk Works chief Ben Rich explains where stealth came from.
Anyway, do some research on your own.

Attached: 1558170252916.png (1175x1047, 175K)

That's unsurprising, anglos themselves are brainlets unable to invent anything. Light bulb? Russian invention. TV and radio? Russian too. Computers? Russia again. To be honest Russians are most likely the smartest people on earth and the fact that american companies have to hire russian engineers to blossom proves that.

Attached: IMG_20190626_224808_840.jpg (720x1280, 70K)

>let' me repeat the obvious: LOCKHEED PAID FOR YAK-43!
and once again you seem to miss the obvious conclusion from this line of logic you are incapable of following. that russia sold military technology it did not seem to think was feasible for use to a foreign power who then took it and did something better than the russians ever could have done.

the reality of this thread is not amerisharts coping but the complete opposite

>Anyway, do some research on your own.
the irony if this statement being that you have not done any and are just regurgitating things you seem to think are facts all because you saw some other anonymous poster saying the same.

>the irony if this statement being that you have not done any and are just regurgitating things you seem to think are facts all because you saw some other anonymous poster saying the same.
thats not an argument. you simply cannot argue FACTS so you're trying personal attacks to deflect from them.

FACTS from Op's pic:

1) Russians were the first to make a VTOL that is now common place
2) Lockheed paid for it, they didn't steal it
3) Stealth was invented by Russians and CIA stole the research and gave it to Lockheed. Ben Rich then implemented it

I don't see why you can't accept these three facts and why you're so butthurt over it. No amount of your kveching can change history.... it just makes your look childish and immature.

The truth is somewhere between the mutts and vatnik claims. Lockheed bought testing data and technical data on the design of the Yak 141 during the time the VTOL JSF was being designed for about a hundred million USD. Mutts claimed it was a joint venture to see if they could sell the Yak 141, but this is a flimsy excuse given the enormous sum paid and as there was no government looking for a VTOL at that time. The Yak 141 was also known to have problems, like not being able to vertically thrust for very long because of heating issues and a short range. Some mutts claim 3 bearing swivel nozzle used by the F 35B was already designed in the US in the 70s to be used on the Convair 200 and so the Yak's was irrelevant, but this was never built and tested, unlike the Yak 141 which had flown.

BUT, the Yak 141 does use a different design than the F 35B. The Yak 141's vertical thrusters are all separate engines while in the F 35B they're fans connected by shaft to the F 35's central engine. The main similarity lies in the 3BSD nozzle.

Tl;dr the F 35's creation was helped and aided by the Yak 141 in the area of the 3BSD nozzle, and possibly some other parts of the VTOL system.

Attached: 1558646173567.jpg (320x304, 56K)

Yak-43 wasn't even fucking built. For the Soviet's VTOL which they fielded look at the miserable Yak-38.
Yak-141 was a prototype group which clearly didn't give the results wanted, so it was cancelled and later some of its ideas were brought over in the F-35. To claim the F-35 is a 1:1 reproduction is retarded.
We can consider it even for the Tu-4 being an actual direct copy of the B-29, or Kalashnikov taking various ideas from Browning and Garand, or the Soviets taking British jet engines because they couldn't build them themselves.

>Stealth was invented by Russians and CIA stole the research and gave it to Lockheed. Ben Rich then implemented it
when you publish papers like this on stealth and someone else reads what you published it doesn't mean that they're stealing your research.

>Russians were the first to make a VTOL that is now common place
russians were the first to fail at making a vtol hence why it was sold to the US, that is a fact.
>Lockheed paid for it, they didn't steal it
even further putting yourself in the whole by accepting that the russians could not do anything with it and had to sell it.

>it just makes your look childish and immature.
the irony, only a vatnik could argue like you do.

I'm not russian. it's just that you can't handle the truth and you throw fits like a child. you're basically arguing with history. I don't care what you have to say anymore. it's pointless arguing wiht someone who can't even agree to historical truths. go waste someone else's time.

anyway, yak-141 in action.

Attached: 1542745602965.webm (636x480, 1.44M)

doesn't even look like it can keep itself straight and steady, what an embarrassment. now post the one with the crash landing.

I dont know if someone say it but the vtol yak uses a system copied from the convair 200, an older plane

Attached: convair model 200 .jpg (2200x1074, 438K)

The Convair 200 was never built, much less designs published in the 80s.

>Russians were the first to make a VTOL that is now common place

That would be the British.

>Stealth was invented by Russians and CIA stole the research and gave it to Lockheed. Ben Rich then implemented it

The foundations were established in the Soviet Union but were quickly abandoned after they believed further developments would be fruitless, the research was published publicly, it wasn't stolen.

>Is this truth?
No. Let's pick apart the three main points of this image
>The lift fan and swiveling engine for STOVL was developed by the Russians
No, this was pioneered on the Convair model 200. Others in the thread have covered this adaquately.
>The design features for the F-35 were copied from the Yak-43
Again, wrong. See pic related, the general design of the aircraft was thought out for the LWF program that developed the F-16.
>The Russians invented stealth
A Russian scientist developed the mathematical formula for calculating the reflection of radiation off of a surface. Undoubtably very important, but it doesn't negate the work the various aerospace companies did in actually designing the aircraft to be stealthy, RAM coatings, and techniques to lower the RCS of an aircraft. Also, it's somewhat telling that the USSR never followed up on this development despite the vast advantages it offers, and the Russian Federation has categorically bungled their attempt at a stealth fighter.

Attached: adf.jpg (550x365, 35K)

>russians were the first to make a VTOL aircraft
does no one remember the AV8B? I mean its first flight was 1978 which is like 12 years before the YAK.....

Mate the Convair 200 was never built or tested.

I think he means supersonic VTOL aircraft

Yeah? We obviously were inspired, it was the objectively better way to do vtol and svtol, why WOULDNT we use the central turbine setup for the B variant?

And what significance does this have? It means the concept wasn't new to the U.S.

how is that relevant? design blueprints were created. that's not much different than building a testbed aircraft that doesn't even begin to meet the pre-production standards. the yak may as well have been on blueprints for all it matters.

Research isnt stolen when you publish it in a publically available scientific journal user, thats just a failure to realize the potential of your own discovery

You can't "pioneer" something you never built or even got to work.

The irony of this statement, when we're in a thread where the OP image is accusing the US of "stealing" stealth technology from Russia.

Based on the development life cycles of jets its about 15 years and hundreds of millions different. The difference is the Yak 141 actually flew many times.

That's some damn fine Boomerposting right there.

Hoo-ahh Devil Dog.

Not him but why would that matter? You think every invention gets built or has to get built for it to be patented and acknowledged? Wrong.

Jesus...that's one of the most stupid things I've ever read on here.

The Russian calculation for radar reflection is just a part of stealth, but the difference is that the math was finished and working. So it is true the radar reflection math was pioneered by the Russians, but undeniably the Russians pioneered the 3BSD nozzle first.

You have to actually build something to qualify as pioneering it, yes. I mean, did the Germans pioneer the atom bomb because they designed it first? By that logic the French made the first submarine because Jules Verne wrote Twenty Thousand Leagues under the sea.

so did the wright brothers, why do vatniks insist on copying superior american technologies that have been made years before. do they have no shame?

You're really going off the rails, I don't even know what you're trying to say here

is that coming from the same poster who put out
>the development life cycles of jets its about 15 years and hundreds of millions different
how ironic

>but undeniably the Russians pioneered the 3BSD nozzle first
So how do you pioneer something that was already designed somewhere else? Also, I noticed you never responded to the other two points I made. Might that be a tacit admission that you got BTFO, and that your image is a sham?

>but undeniably the Russians pioneered the 3BSD nozzle first.
What a crock of shit. Different types 3 bearing swing nozzles were patented by Americans (also IIRC Brits and Germans) long before Yakovlev had anything to do with it.

Furthermore, a joint team consisting of Rolls Royce and MAN Turbo built the first functional 3 bearing swing nozzle in the 1960s, again long before Yakovlev.

Attached: 3bsn.png (1167x855, 332K)

But it is. The JSF was in the works since the 80s at the earliest, the LWF in the early 70s and so on.

What other two points, and what image? I'm not OP
My mistake, the Russians didn't pioneer it. The correct statement is the Russians pioneered the first supersonic VTOL with the 3BSD nozzle.

No.
There is even a copy pasta answer to that picture:
Aint going to waste my time to write an answer to this picture, straight from the archive:
A little list of stuff that is fishy on a short glimpse in this picture alone >Yak uses dedicated vertical thrust jets not a lift fan
Obvious difference hence why they lie about it.
>work of Petr Ufimstev was deem to be useless for soviets and so it was allowed to be puplish publicly
American making stuff work russians could not.
>the picture of the YAK-43 is according to wikipedia from a site for vector graphics that is offline, great source
On top of that every vantik like you would have shitted all over me for using something from wikipedia, while almost all the text on the picture is from there.
>there is no source at all for the YAK-43 using s-ducts
Inb4 "but YAK-40 and YAK-42 had them". Yeah they had them but they are fucking civilian airliners and entire different planes

>What other two points, and what image? I'm not OP
My post that you replied to >41886971
The OP image seems to be what you're defending, and you have this obsession with Russia "inventing" swiveling nozzles.

Wrong
codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137
>A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak.
>Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Navy wanted a supersonic STOVL fighter to operate from its ski jump equipped carriers. At what point the Yakovlev Design Bureau became aware of the multi-swivel nozzle design is not known, but the Soyuz engine company created its own variant of it. The Yak-41 version of the nozzle, from published pictures, appears to be a three-bearing swivel duct with a significant offset “kink.” The Yak-141 also used two RKBM RD-41 lift engines – an almost identical arrangement to the Convair Model 200 design. The aircraft was also re-labeled as a Yak-141 to imply a production version, but no order for follow-on series came from the Russian Navy.
>Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits.

>Kevin Renshaw served as the ASTOVL Chief Engineer for General Dynamics and was later the deputy to Lockheed ASTOVL Chief Engineer Rick Rezabek in 1994 when the 3BSD concept was incorporated into the X-35B design. Renshaw continues to work in the Advanced System Development branch of Skunk Works where he is currently working on flight demonstration of the DARPA ARES VTOL UAV program.

>You have to actually build something to qualify as pioneering it, yes.
I'm honestly not sure wether you're trolling or legit that stupid but let me try to explain something to you, and this is a pretty related example to boot...

In the Soviet Union, under communism, the Soviet aerospace industry had different design bureaus like MiG or Tupolev and then you had the factories where the stuff was built like KNAAPO. Engineers at MiG would come up with an idea for a new plane, they'd conceptualize it, run calculations, run wind tunnel tests generally together with Tsagi or similar scientific institutes and then once all that theoretical work was done, they had a prototype built at KNAAPO.

What you're claiming is that KNAAPO (who did nothing but manufacture and assemble) did the pioneering work, not Mig (who did all the brainy stuff). Do you now see why that's so retarded?

old news.

>One of two ways to make a vtol
>100% Russia copy

Attached: 1545068955185.jpg (640x830, 75K)

Hint: the yak used seperate lift engine

Americans are soulless golems and can't innovate. Everything is stolen from Russia and Europe

lol, no. I could make the same image but this time replacing the Yak-43 with the Me-262 and show hey look the F-35 is a derivative of the Me-262 because they both have wings jet engines cockpits, stabilizers, etc. The F-35 has more in common with the British Harrier than with the Yak-43, because the US literally flew harriers for decades.

As to developing stealth. The first stealth plane in the world was F-117, the second was the B-2, the third was the F-22, the fourth was the F-35. A Russian may have made the math, but he didn't realize its usefulness, nor did any of his other 400 million comrades. Hence a Russian came up with some new math, and all the Soviets completely failed to see its applicable to the real world. Oh and if coming up with the math necessary means you developed the technology, then the Greeks are by far the best weapons developers in the world!

Weak b8

I love these shitpost threads. No one on Jow Forums has humor.

I think you're really failing basic English here. I'm not saying the builders get the credit. I'm saying you need to actually build and design something to actually invented it. The Convair 200 was never built.

That's just false. The Russians straight away realized the implications of the work. It was just unfeasible to them at the time to build a stealthy aerodynamic shape with available computing power, which would also be the case for America until the F 117 was designed.

Are you saying your source says the Convair 200 was built? If you're confusing people again, I'm

>The Russians straight away realized the implications of the work
No. According to Ben Rich in "Skunk Works", it was published in an old issue of a scientific journal that was forgotten by the USSR that one of the Skunkworks engineers happened to have dug through.

I'm neither defending OP nor him. I'm just pointing out the Convair was never built. I'm the guy pointing out the ludicracy of saying you pioneered something because you designed it on paper.

This is completely false.

>The Russians straight away realized the implications of the work.
Citation needed, because they sure as shit didnt produce anything from it.
>It was just unfeasible to them at the time to build a stealthy aerodynamic shape with available computing power, which would also be the case for America until the F 117 was designed.
Actually they had sufficient computing power by 1976, and had thousands of times more than necessary by the late 80s. Yet nothing got made, not a single stealthy design was modeled, no blueprints made up, and of course nothing was produced.
>which would also be the case for America until the F 117 was designed.
This is how you know it is complete BS. His argument is literally you cannot design something until you can. And the only way you know you can is by actually designing it. Thus in his view if you dont do something that means you cannot do it. Which, hilariously, means that he just proved that the Russians didnt develop stealth because they couldnt.

>I'm the guy pointing out the ludicracy of saying you pioneered something because you designed it on paper
How is that ludicrous? If the design feature was earlier seen somewhere else (and not exclusively on the model 200, as has been seen elsewhere in the thread), it by definition cannot have been pioneered by the Russians.

>I'm not saying the builders get the credit.
That's what you claimed above: "You have to actually build something to qualify as pioneering it"

>I'm saying you need to actually build and design something to actually invented it.
Literally every patent office and patent lawyer in the world disagrees with this.

Read a book or something, dumbfuck.

You mean this one?
>the CIA began an intensive search to find out what the Russians were
doing in stealth technology by redirecting satellites to overfly their radar ranges. The agency concluded that their only real interest in stealth was some preliminary experiments with long-range
missiles. Otherwise, stealth was not a priority for them. Why spend money on a costly stealth delivery system when the U.S. had so few defensive missile systems and none nearly as sophisticated as their own?

archive.org/stream/SkunkWorksAPersonalMemoirOfMyYearsAtLockheedBenRRich/Skunk Works_ A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed - Ben R Rich--_djvu.txt

You should read Ben Rich's memoirs. The Russians were aware of stealth, but for strategic reasons it was not a priority unlike with the US, see they got in very late in the game with the proposed Mig 1.44

I said actually build, you retard, not only.

>calling me a dumbfuck when you're retarded
Patents are awarded to designs, you moron. Whether they actually work is a whole other question. By your logic the pioneer of the space rocket and the atom bomb is both Germany because they designed it first.

If it is true... Where are the high tech Russian jets?

>I said actually build, you retard, not only.
And that's wrong. Wether it has been built or not is of no relevance to the patenting process.

>Patents are awarded to designs
>Whether they actually work is a whole other question.
Correct. And wether they have been built is a whole other question as well. Plenty of inventions have been patented which have never been built, space elevators fe.

>By your logic the pioneer of the space rocket and the atom bomb is both Germany because they designed it first.
Well, they are...And historians give them credit for it. In what kind of a fantasy world do you live?

You can patent unfinished or unworkable things, a patent on its own is no indication of achievement.

>a patent on its own is no indication of achievement
Another amazingly stupid and counter-factual claim. I am in awe, unironically.

You can patent things you haven't actually finished, have any plans of using, or aren't actually workable. You can pretend to be as shocked or flabbergasted as you'd like, it doesn't change the fact that a patent is in no way a sure indication of achievement, and no replacement for actual, practical success. You could spend a decade developing something, fail to get it to work, and still patent it.

I'm flabbergasted by how stupid, clueless and out of your depth you are, that's all. You clearly aren't an engineer, scientist or anything even remotely of that sort nor a patent lawyer.

What do you work as? Gas station manager? Are you even American or yet another troll factory operative?

eat a dick that looks sexy

You can hurl insults but you're still wrong, you can file patents for faulty designs. A patent is not an indication of a successful design, Steyr's Advanced Combat Rifle has a patent, and it sucks.

>You clearly aren't an engineer, scientist or anything even remotely of that sort nor a patent lawyer.

You're delusional.

>You're delusional.
So you are either a scientist, an engineer or a patent lawyer?

No, and you don't need to be one to understand what I'm saying, its common knowledge.

>No
I knew you were nothing of the sort. It oozes out through your posts.

>I'm saying, its common knowledge
You're saying many things and have changed your position quite a lot since your initial post.

A patent, by itself, does not constitute a success. The object may be faulty, unreliable, or in any other way, fail to achieve what the design was intended to do. You can patent a failure, the fact you have a patent doesn't mean you've succeeded in what you set out to do.

>faulty, unreliable, or in any other way, fail to achieve what the design was intended to do
Sounds a lot like the Yak-43

>A patent, by itself, does not constitute a success.
That's where you're wrong. As I said you're completely clueless. If you knew how the patenting process works, you'd know why you're wrong.

Anyhow, I've lost more than enough of my time with you as is. Have a nice day and unironically read a book.

> If you knew how the patenting process works, you'd know why you're wrong.

As I have previously stated the Steyr ACR has several patents filed for it, and it was a failure. Like I've said you can file patents for items that are, by definition, failures.

>and it was a failure
No it wasn't you turbotard

It was less effective than the weapon it was intended to replace and rejected.

Basic vatnik disinformation and fake news.

You can really see them panic now that F-35 is becoming a finalized product they can't compete with.

The troll factories are working hard day and night to try to twist the truth about the greatest aircraft designers in the world - the american people at Lockheed Martin, that is.

Attached: 1545880137764.png (549x280, 186K)

They're just mad that their aging Su-27+++++++++++++++++++'s are going to spend the next 50 years getting shot down by AIM-120D's and AIM-260's launched from F-22s via the F-35's radar.

There's also lots of that "wrap the lie around a kernel of truth" stuff going on here.

Any part inspected at any date, even after US has launched it's own, better project is twisted into "F-35 was designed by Russia" level of imaginary stories.

Then there's a whole discussion about the falsified "facts", which moves the middle ground from pure truth to 50 percent truth and 50 percent imagination. Someone might actually believe a small part of the lies, this is where any trolls can be successful.

Then again, this is the whole point of troll factories, obscure the truth with imagination. When nothing is true, anything is possible.

Attached: FAKE-NEWS.png (1024x512, 829K)

i've seen that pic multiple times in f35 threads and it always causes massive amounts of butthurt from muttniks who can't handle the truth. it destroys their myths of superiority completely.
kek... love it.
godspeed!

no

Great plane, its much less stable than earlier vtols

youtu.be/ywESYxuTgPM?t=126

as stable as F-35B

Buttblasted muttoid detected

lol k

>The Russians straight away realized the implications of the work.

lol, that's why it was unclassified

>Knocks around while trying to land on a stationary platform
>Jet wash from the ground violently rocks it back and forth as it takes off
>Compared to: youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY

Right.

Of course it is.

The only difference is that krokodil afllicted muslims (USSR) were too retarded to see the Yak-43 to it's end. Whereas westerners recognised a good thing and applied all of its design principles to a machine that actually exists.

Same thing as stealth mathematics and tokamak design; Only western ingenuity could realise the idea. Slavs have a few rare moments of brilliant insight but soon succumb to their inherent retardation and allow a good thing to go to waste.

Moving the goal post you bitch?