I saw that Real Sports on HBO where all of Russia’s star hockey players were killed from badly made crashing Russian airliners so no one wants to ride in them.
Real Sports on HBO.
Absolutely authoritative source on aircraft disaster causes, yes.
Are you sure it lacks the engines? On the most recent picture something is seen under the belly, like the nozzles are pointing downwards. Yes i know they are in neutral position usually. On high res pic from same author taken during the winter it looks like there are tarp covers covering something circular.
I’ve heard that engines and hydraulic drives (designed by hydraulics guru Belevitin at NPO Rodina and made by MMZ Znamya) were removed. Will be happy if that were just a rumors.
mothballed at Gromov LII at Zhukovsky, at restricted area, readily seen at GE photos, minus engines. Some sluggish talks of transition to Monino museum, but all jibs into declassification procedure that Air Force, the Customer, officially in charge of. No one wants to put efforts into this.
Anyway, enough ranting from me, here is an max load-up config of the Su-35S(nice to see the wing tip rail used for weapon for a change..), not an every day pics though.
that’s not enough!:D other side was much more impressive
Having in mind what the quotation you made, one can conclude that the T-50 after all is NOT an air superiority fighter, because it doesn’t have the ability to maintain air superiority over a given area since it’s weapon’s load is exhausted by the initial engagement.
all depends of what do you call “exhausted weapon’s load”
what can be ‘exhausted’ for armchair general or aircraft sim player, can be enough for mission planners in Air Force research institute…
If you mean the F-35 that’s understandable. But PAK FA gives us the worst of both worlds because its a larger, heavier, more expensive aircraft with the internal loadout of a much smaller one. Not just the F-35 but the Korean KF-X, the Indian AMCA and the Japanese ATDX are all aiming at 4+ internal weapon loadouts and those are much smaller aircraft than the PAK FA and not aiming as ambitiously for long range strike capability.
let’s face it – all leaked info so far shows that T-50 can carry just 4 MRAAMs in MWB
insiders, S-37 weapon bay test photos, UVKU-50 manual – *everything*
does it mean that it wouldn’t carry 6 in future? who knows
may be four missile limit just a disinformation piping? quite possible
several lighter and cheaper aircrafts with less weapons onboard are better than a few aircrafts with massive weapons load
you can loose missile carrier before it will have all weapon load fired
In summary, three R-77s are best carried line abreast or not at all, it seems.
as ex-RuAF chief Mikhailov once said, paraphrasing, is it good to have twelve [quite expensive] missiles onboard if you can’t use all of them as it’s hard to imagine a perfect world [when you can shoot all twelve and still survive]? may be four or even two are enough http://www.taiiclub.ru/modules/news/print.php?storyid=29
you can imagine a load of potatoes there too
but it will also have nothing common with reality
why do you think UVKU-50/50L manual spokes of ‘right and left launchers being interchangeable?’
gosh, these ‘how many missiles’ ‘S-ducts’ ‘exposed fan blades’ ‘rivets’ stuff started in January 2010 and continues till now when new rows of slowpokes or trolls arrive
all questions were answered literally hundreds, no – thousand times everywhere
Sign In
