I’ve been playing guitar for a while now. Most of what I play probably falls into the death metal category, much to the dismay of my neighbors :diablo:
Yes that is what I’m referring to.
Any chance you could send them my way as well? π
Yeah, same here π
It only ever made the one 15-minute flight – again AFAIK.
It did fly twice. On the second flight the main gear was retracted. This did not occur on the first flight. Here’s a picture from the second flight. If you notice, the two exhaust nozzles are open to different degrees. Differential thrust for directional control, maybe?
Why buy the Python 4 at this point when there are thousands of R-73s on hand already, and the ability to fire the R-73 will likely make the aircraft capable of handling the replacement in the future?
The MKI variant was advertised as far back as 1997.
Pakistan, like anyone else, will not put a weapon system into operational service if it hasn’t been tested first.
The MiG 1.44 made a grand total of two flights. The current rumor is that it’ll be sent to Monino at some point, perhaps after MiG uses it to test a few more things.
The Su-47 may have been intended to have TVC as it was intended to use the AL-41 engines. The Su-47 wasn’t an “official” project however, so the few AL-41s went to MiG for the 1.42 program and flew in the 1.44 demonstrator.
1.42 could have been a “Raptor killer” if the Keldysh system worked as advertised. Acting as an active ECM system to defeat AIM-120s, it could have forced the F-22 into a WVR environment, and the 1.42 was intended to be extremely agile. At that point it comes down to missile performance and pilot ability, but on paper the Raptor would not have been invincible against a well flown 1.42.
The Su-47 was a reduced observable aircraft but not true LO. As there has been no connection between the aforementioned Keldysh device and this aircraft, it’d likely have been vulnerable to a Raptor’s AIM-120 load and therefore not have been a true equal in terms of combat ability. The 1.42 wasn’t a true LO platform either, of course, but the Keldysh device could’ve been a real problem for an active radar missile seeker.
Either of those aircraft, in their intended forms, would have likely outperformed any of the FLANKER variants around at the time, as that was their purpose. Put either one into service, and it becomes easily the most advanced and capable air superiority fighter outside of the USA.
To change the 1.44 into the 1.42 for production, MiG would have added a cranked-arrow delta wing style, a different intake more reminiscent of that found on the Tu-160’s nacelles, and obviously both a radar and rear-facing radar. To change the Su-47 into a production fighter would have likely involved adding a radar and IRSTS, as well as a rear-facing radar system. Obviously the weapon bays would have been fitted out with the ability to actually carry and fire AAMs as well, and it wouldn’t have suprised me to see wingtip R-74 rails on either jet.
There are photos somewhere on the net (posted here too I think) of what appears to be an Su-27 flying over the USA, as well as an image of a MiG-29 captured on the ramp at Groom Lake from a ways off.
The Topsight HMS is a bad example. Why? Because they were integrated with new aircraft under a new contract. Indian AF MiG-29s were delivered before you claim they should have been buying the Python 4, so they already had Russian systems installed and integrated. Next.
Oh yeah, here’s one for you. I guess the MKK/MK2 must be superior to the MKI as China did not acquire the tandem triplane layout, the TVC engines, or the Bars radar, right?
Your arguments are simply based on past events which you are skewing to make your point for you. There is nothing factual in your argument. Reminds me of the whole “Pakistan inducts weapons before they test them” debacle :rolleyes:
If you want a really “good” Bruce Campbell flick, check out “Bubba Ho-tep” :diablo:
If you want a really “good” Bruce Campbell flick, check out “Bubba Ho-tep” :diablo:
But what would a USAF pilot know about the operational issues and costs of an An-124 or any other Soviet built aircraft?
Admittedly nothing, but they can tell you how the C-5 fares, which was my point there.
The Tu-144A prototype which first flew in December 1968 was NOT
the worldβs first supersonic airliner!
Eh? What SST beat it into the air?
whate else proof u need when two largest customers India/China in 90s were not buying Python 4 in thousands?
Did you ever stop to think about the integration issue with Python 4 and the HMS in the Russian aircraft? No? Keep trying…
It’s a pretty amusing story π The details are on the placard in front of the aircraft at the museum. I thought I’d snapped a picture of the placard, but I guess not.
……
All of that and you still have yet to prove that the R-73 is superior to the Python 4.
I have talked with the USAF Officer who sourced the East German MiG-23MLs for Air Combat Command. He states categorically that they were sourced for static exploitation. One is in the Threat Training Facility at Nellis, but I do not know the whereabouts of the others.
It is possible one or more was siphoned off by Air Force Materiel Command and flown, but I cannot confirm that.
I think one of them is on static display at Goodfellow AFB in Texas. There’s a MiG-29, a MiG-23, and a 2K12 TEL and radar pair. The SAM kit is a sight to see, let me tell you!
The USAF Museum MiG-23 is not an East German example (it’s an MLD anyway), I forget where it came from but it was not purchased by AFMC or sourced by the USAF. It was actually impounded because some genius was trying to import it into the US!
added cost incurred in developing 2 engines
…a cost which should be payed by the interested party or parties alone, not spread over the entire program.