Talk:Yakovlev Yak-25

Expansion
Another article that is VectorSite fodder. - Aerobird 22:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So sad ! the link is dead.

Disambiguation
This page need a disambiguation note with the first Yak-25 built in 1947 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-25_%281947%29 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.6.224.137 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"All around armor"?
"The aircraft's fixed windshield included a 105-millimeter (4.1 in)-thick bulletproof glass panel, while the rest of the aircraft was protected by 10-millimeter (0.39 in) all-round armor plates."

That is ridiculous. There is no way that "the rest of the aircraft" can be protected by armor plate. It would weigh tons. What, instead of using light-gauge aluminium skin like usual, they shaped the entire skin out of 10mm thick armor plate? Its no wonder so many people are confused by reading about planes that are "armored". When giving a plane armor, you only armor the engines, oil tanks and coolers, radiators, and the pilot, perhaps main hydraulic reservoir and pumps, rarely fuel tanks (because they are too large to efficiently protect). This can be done with small pieces of armor plate, and is often only concentrated to the rear, or front and rear, on the bottom to protect from ground fire, rarely from all directions, since fire is much less likely to come from some directions than others. It rarely provides perfect protection, mostly acting to reduce the odds of a random it making a deadly penetration. It is much like armoring a car by putting armor on the drivers seat back and across the radiator, to protect the driver from shots from behind and the radiator and engine from shots from the front. This can be done with a small increase in weight. You could armor the side doors and fender panels to protect from side fire, and even armor the hood to protect from fire from above. To try and cover the entire outside of the car would result in several thousand pounds of armor, and would require thinner plate to stay within reasonable weight limits. by only armoring the small vital areas, it allows the plate to be much thicker, giving much better protection. The closest we've ever come to actual armored aircraft are the Henschel Hs 129, the Ilyushin Il-2, and the A-10 Thunderbolt II, and even those planes limit their armor plating to the cockpit, engines and cooling systems. Only instead of a small plate under the pilots seat and a small plate on either side to reduce the odds of a lucky random hit, they actually provide full armor right around the engine, the bottom and sides of the cockpit, even bulletproof canopies for the Hs 129 and Il-2, radiator and engine protection (from the bottom and sides only for the Henschel). Since those planes were designed to fly in an intense ground fire environment, this added weight makes sense. It does not make sense on a high speed jet reconnaissance aircraft. I can guarantee you when they say "all around protection" they mean that the pilot was equipped with front and side, perhaps bottom armor as well. Maybe some protecting the engines from the lower quarter, but I doubt it, since its not designed for low altitude attack. You can't protect a jet from the front or rear, although they may have thought it worthwhile to wrap a thin armor tube around each engine to protect from small arms fire and fragments from AA shells, although most nations no longer bother since it is impossible to armor against any sort of serious projectile without going to unfeasible weights. For example, the 10mm quoted is pretty much only adequate for stopping small arms fire and small fragments. Its to protect you from the "Golden BB", from being incapacitated by a single lucky fragment from a near miss warhead taking out the pilot or a vital system. It is little protection from a direct hit by fighter armament or a shell or missile.

64.222.153.246 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It was added three years ago by User:Kges1901, they can check the source and correct or confirm that the whole aircraft was protected by armour plate. My guess is that it should say 'cockpit. Before launching in to a diatribe with no paragraph breaks consider that it could be a simple editing error. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  10:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The source says "...protection was also provided by all-around armour plates 10 mm thick." It doesn't explicitly state where that armour is. However, Gordon, Kommisarov and Kommisarov's OKB Yakovlev clarifies this; "the crew sat in tandem under a common aft sliding canopy. The fixed windshield incorporated a bulletproof glass panel no less than 105 mm (4$9/64$ in) thick; protection was also provided by a forward armour plate, armoured seat backs and headrests, and side armour; all of them 10 mm (0$10/32$ in thick)." This indicates that it is, as expected, the cockpit that is protected.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)