Why, Harlava, why!!!
Ignore the obvious trolling.
http://russianplanes.net/images/to57000/056615.jpg
Another cool pic of the Indian Tu-142.
I know prolly because they did not have a good enough engine for a single engined fighter back then ?
Anyway if it was single engined it would have fared much better in RuAF now.
You are aware the RuAF made a specific decision to phase out all 1 engine fighters in the 90s?
And no, they went for 2 engines not because they did not have a good enough engine, AL-31 existed back then. 😉
Once again, do you have any information that MIG desired a one engine solution, but faced with a shortage of acceptable engines, decided to go for the inferior 2 engine layout?
That’s like saying, F-22 designers only went 2 engine because a single engine did not exist to meet their demands. Yeah….so?
perfect optimum? volume limits? I wasn’t behind the decision, I just tell you the facts
maximum number of missiles per bay was known publicly well before the maiden flight
Hmm, well either way if larger missiles are intended then 6 launchers is pointless.
So how about the long range armament for the domestic plane, any ramjet RVV-BV development out there?
Po ruski mozhno yesli lehche.
-Spasibo!
They have operated single engined fighters in the past, it was their inability to produce a suitable engine for the MIG 29 that resulted in it being twin engined, and ultimately led to its high LCC.
Do you have information that they tried to make a single engine for the MiG-29? 😉
It was 2 engined from the start.
http://lenta.ru/news/2011/10/16/an/
An-148 made emergency landing.
Supposedly one engine either gave out or had problems.
Yeah but 6 slots for smaller missiles is pointless if it ends up carrying larger AAMS in the end.
Uvazhamiy Flateric,
Any specific reasoning for only 2 launchers inside each bay? Direct reason of intended large long range AAMs?
http://russianplanes.net/images/to57000/056516.jpg
This is what I think of your satellite corrected bombs.
http://lenta.ru/news/2011/10/14/corvette/
And she has been accepted into the navy.
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/7721/y618dd13c.jpg
Interesting photo, nothing I have seen before.
http://ria.ru/riatv/#tv_defense_safety/458556517
Some decent footage of Mi-28s working the range.
Su-25SM with an interesting payload.
http://russianplanes.net/images/to57000/056463.jpg
Su-35C
Always good to turn around and see your death approaching.. mmm.. 😀
Don’t even bother, he is blatantly trolling.
TR1, I think Hotdog understands your view all right, he’s just setting up a trap for you so that you can keep feeding the troll.
Yep, I agree. Not bothering anymore.
Lol we should be able to call t 50 a flanker raptor love child then :p
They are all Wright flyer rip offs anyhow.
misleading video because the camera angle is positioned below the pilot, or what we call… a groins eye view where the seat is blocking that metal part
how about this
you can see the view line from the pilots head… Su-27 pilot will not get the hot chinese chick.
Honestly hotdog, are you purposefully being dumb?
I will repeat once more. The only part where the vision would be blocked by the metal is where the pilot would have a hard if not impossible time actually cranking his neck to. Vision or no vision there makes zero difference.
That video shows perfectly the Su-27s all round vision.