it was a while back on f-16.net forum
yes I do they were saying ( on f-16.net) these were dummy missiles

Seriously??

There is your problem right there.

I see a certain F16.net poster has decided to troll post here… precisely the same outlandish stuff posted there… post after post after post.

It really is bizarre.
There is nothing really to be gained from discussing this with such a closed mind.
Basic facts and real-life evidence mean nothing in the face of delusional wishful thinking.

I am trying to figure out the Yak-141 airframes that were built.
Wiki says 4 were built, which included a “test” airframe. I assume a static airframe?
Footage I have seen shows 75 and 77 on display at museums.
I have seen a claim that 75 on display is actually 77.
One Yak-141 crashed..I have seen it said this was rebuilt for display.
I have just come across a stored Yak-141 being loaded up onto a truck in a hangar surrounded by other Yak aircraft.
Does anyone know what the airframe numbers were..and where they ended up?
I ask this is light of various recent statements about a possible VTOL aircraft programme coming out of Russia recently.

Raddisconnect
Also, looks like wilhem will rip on people criticizing Su-57, but is totally fine with KGB’s rambling.

Every single one of your posts on this thread has included an ad hominem on somebody.
This is worthless and serves to contribute to the certain posters agendas to derail and shutdown this thread.
Madrats post above is yet another example of this, based on a mistranslated and skewed interpretation of a quote by a non-insider.
Show some self restraint.
I couldn’t give a figs leaf about the other threads.
Certain posters here, such as Action Jackson, have an awful reputation on other forums…with an overt xenophobic based approach.
Madrat sticks clear of outright stereotypes, but as witnessed above, adds very little.
I have never agreed, nor answered KGB. Stop projecting.
He at least sticks to the topic, even if i may disagree with some of his conclusions.
The same posters i mention many times make multiple posts without even the pretence of mentioning the aeroplane which this topic is about.
I am here for Su-57 analysis, not for personal inadequacies.
Please exercise some self control.
Less of the worthless personal attacks.

The middle picture hanging on his wall…on the right.
Looks like a Cheetah C.
Would have been interesting to hear what his opinion is on it….basically being gutted and equipped with modern electronics, as well as an off-bore helmet guided missile system that he was impressed with.

I always thought of the Su-7 as a frustrated ground attack plane because it seemed to have all of the trappings of an interceptor and very few needed by a CAS/ground attack platform. Strap some R-3’s to an Su-7 and with the canons in the wing roots you might have something.

The Su-7 was originally designed as frontal fighter for tactical air superiority over the battlefront.
It actually went into service in limited numbers (about 150) in 1959 and served in the Far East until the mid 60’s.
The requirement had changed in the interim and Sukhoi was instructed to modify the design into a ground attack fighter, which led to the Su-7 in the role as we know it.

tankdriver
A little off topic, much money was spent on the Jaguar M and in the end it was felt cheaper to go with the Super Etendard, and the program was to replace the naval strike a/c, but was any thought given to a navalized F.1?

Here is a linedrawing of the original naval Mirage F1

[ATTACH=CONFIG]257450[/ATTACH]