That are useless, when not supported by a related network. Otherwise that will be destroyed on the ground in short notice in a real war-time mission. 😉

Really? That’s odd. They were not destroyed on the ground last time.

(you know by now: 😉 )

That is called an exercise in which non will be killed to has to learn from that.
Under such circumstances the teachers are intrested to make the most of the flying time at hand. 😉

Except I never said anything about excercises. I didn’t even mention the word.

And now it’s time for your favourite smiley: 😉

29/11/66 Ran Ronen with Mirage IIIC No 84 of 119 Squadron against a RJAF Hunter at the Dead Sea and ultra low level, when the dogfight started near Hebron and dit last close to 8 minutes in total. When Ronen managed to put a canon burst into the fighter, the brave pilot ejected into the wall of the canyon by bad luck.
Lt. Muwaffaq Salti was the first RJAF pilot to lose his life in an air battle.
Al Azraq / AlShaheed Muwaffaq Salti AB
Runways: 13/31 26/08
Position: 31° 49′ 59.8N 36° 47′ 1.8E
It was named in honor of that famous Jordan pilot.

A MiG-21bis can stay for around 20 minutes in burner-stages over the home base for air-combat-training and burned ~2300 litre by that.

Thank you. 🙂

Dogfights do not last longer than 2 minutes in general, most ones are even shorter in endurance.

The longest dogfights are held during peacetime and typically can last well over two minutes.

The longest recorded was 7,5 minutes in the 60s. 😉

Source? 😉

Dogfight means near-continuous use of afterburners, and right now I cannot think of any 60s’ design whose engines could last 7,5 minutes in afterburner. Unless of course if you do not refer to fast jet fighters.

The Red circles under the aircraft would be the ext hardpoints mounting right?

Thats a total of six external.
Are the inner wing hardpoints only reserved for DT’s?

Why should they be? :confused:

Adding that with the internal weapons bays, given it has 6 internal missiles should put it right where the Flanker is on armament capabilities.

Wich is impressive, but what if it can carry 8 missile int..:eek:

How great will the A2G capabilities be later on, when the A2G hardware/software get slammed on this bird.
Whats your take on that?

The external pylon should be certified with dual ejector racks of some kind, like LAU-127. This would increase the number of missiles furthermore, I think it’s quite feasible as there is plenty of room on the wing.

This could allow for carriage of heavy A2G ordnance internally (thus not compromising stability nor weapons quantity).

They would most certainly be certified with multiple egector racks for dump bombs or SDB type munition.

That’s even if it actually carries only 6 missiles internally, which is open to debate.

In all, given that this bird is meant to replace flankers, it would be no surprise its ability to carry as much ordnance as a flanker.

Trying to determine what the intake configuration is…is hardly “polluting the thread”. Certainly not given many of the posts on here.

Actually message has been received days… no weeks ago.

You DON’T need to post daily that you don’t agree. We have figured that out, thank you.

And no, there isn’t any configuration showing how the engine face can be hidden. Its not for me to “accept them”…its when you curve the duct into the area of the main landing gear for example, to try and make it so…but just ain’t so 😉

This has been answered and explained to you lots of times in the past. So if you don’t have something new to contribute to this thread, just be gone and stop polluting it. It’s as simple as that.