By: Nils
- 25th May 2008 at 07:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
looking closer at the 2007 picture of the SU-47, i notice that the internal weaponsbay under the landing gear is open. i had no idea that the SU-47 had an internal weapons bay, does anyone have any better pictures of this :?
By: slipperysam
- 25th May 2008 at 11:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"looking closer at the 2007 picture of the SU-47, i notice that the internal weaponsbay under the landing gear is open. i had no idea that the SU-47 had an internal weapons bay, does anyone have any better pictures of this :? "
On closer look at the picture posted of the belly of the aircraft you can see the out line of possibly 4 doors? Though you can clearly see 2 doors in the middle of the belly and the faint outline of two more either side under the air intakes......
By: paralay
- 25th May 2008 at 20:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
looking closer at the 2007 picture of the SU-47, i notice that the internal weaponsbay under the landing gear is open. i had no idea that the SU-47 had an internal weapons bay, does anyone have any better pictures of this :?
By: sferrin
- 25th May 2008 at 21:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, true. I see your point. Keep thinking some of the F-15 got the F110 at the C- version but was the F-16C.
The F-15E's as I recall got the common engine bay that could take either but the only F-15s of any flavor anywhere that got F110s were the South Korean ones and even their next 20 Eagles are getting P&W -229s. Weird how the USAF seems to love GE for the F-16s and P&W for the F-15s. :confused:
By: mobryan
- 25th May 2008 at 22:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15E's as I recall got the common engine bay that could take either but the only F-15s of any flavor anywhere that got F110s were the South Korean ones and even their next 20 Eagles are getting P&W -229s. Weird how the USAF seems to love GE for the F-16s and P&W for the F-15s. :confused:
By: sferrin
- 25th May 2008 at 22:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USAF spread the wealth program???
Matt
Judging by the current F136 fiasco my money would lean towards thinking the USAF did the two-types per plane no more than it was forced at gunpoint to. The DoD wants nothing to do with the F136. The pork trough is ordering different though.
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 25th May 2008 at 22:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is this aircraft black ? I read somewhere that it was painted dark blue (navy colours ) i think in one of Mike spik's books ..
By: MadRat
- 25th May 2008 at 23:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Judging by the current F136 fiasco my money would lean towards thinking the USAF did the two-types per plane no more than it was forced at gunpoint to. The DoD wants nothing to do with the F136. The pork trough is ordering different though.
Don't mistake the wants of the USAF with those of the DoD. Last I heard the DoD was a tainted mess.
By: sferrin
- 26th May 2008 at 16:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We will pay for its development but then share the technology.. Otherway we'll just buy if off the shelf.. or don't buy anything..
Right. So if we don't need or want a second engine why should we pay out of our own pocket to develope one? (European partners aren't covering the cost of the F136).
Posts: 499
By: LoofahBoy - 25th May 2008 at 06:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "give 'em sh*t" dont it? ;)
Posts: 508
By: Nils - 25th May 2008 at 07:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
looking closer at the 2007 picture of the SU-47, i notice that the internal weaponsbay under the landing gear is open. i had no idea that the SU-47 had an internal weapons bay, does anyone have any better pictures of this :?
Posts: 784
By: slipperysam - 25th May 2008 at 11:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"looking closer at the 2007 picture of the SU-47, i notice that the internal weaponsbay under the landing gear is open. i had no idea that the SU-47 had an internal weapons bay, does anyone have any better pictures of this :? "
On closer look at the picture posted of the belly of the aircraft you can see the out line of possibly 4 doors? Though you can clearly see 2 doors in the middle of the belly and the faint outline of two more either side under the air intakes......
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 25th May 2008 at 19:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, true. I see your point. Keep thinking some of the F-15 got the F110 at the C- version but was the F-16C.
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 25th May 2008 at 20:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://paralay.com/s37.html
Posts: 573
By: UAZ - 25th May 2008 at 20:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-47 flying on 21.03.2008 at Zhukovsky. Look at internal weapons bay doors.
Posts: 1,403
By: Otaku - 25th May 2008 at 21:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very interesting indeedy!! For about 18 months the S-37 has been flying with a modified weapons bay for the PAK-FA programme.
Afaik, this is the first glimpse of the doors open, nice find UAZ- of a PAK-FA weapons bay test-bed with stealth serrated doors :)
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 25th May 2008 at 21:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-15E's as I recall got the common engine bay that could take either but the only F-15s of any flavor anywhere that got F110s were the South Korean ones and even their next 20 Eagles are getting P&W -229s. Weird how the USAF seems to love GE for the F-16s and P&W for the F-15s. :confused:
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 25th May 2008 at 22:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is this aircraft black ? I read somewhere that it was painted dark blue (navy colours ) i think in one of Mike spik's books ..
Posts: 231
By: mobryan - 25th May 2008 at 22:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USAF spread the wealth program???
Matt
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 25th May 2008 at 22:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Judging by the current F136 fiasco my money would lean towards thinking the USAF did the two-types per plane no more than it was forced at gunpoint to. The DoD wants nothing to do with the F136. The pork trough is ordering different though.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 25th May 2008 at 22:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Black.. Dark black, actually ;)Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 25th May 2008 at 23:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't mistake the wants of the USAF with those of the DoD. Last I heard the DoD was a tainted mess.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 26th May 2008 at 00:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nobody wants the F136 except the politicians and GE.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 26th May 2008 at 01:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...and the European partners.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 26th May 2008 at 02:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
as long as they don't have to pay for it. ;)
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 26th May 2008 at 05:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wait, we agreed to pay for it if they paid for other stuff. Canceling the F136 would of been our renege.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 26th May 2008 at 05:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why in the world would we ask other nations to kick in money just so we can spend the same to develope an engine we don't need? Makes no sense.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 26th May 2008 at 12:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We will pay for its development but then share the technology.. Otherway we'll just buy if off the shelf.. or don't buy anything..
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 26th May 2008 at 16:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right. So if we don't need or want a second engine why should we pay out of our own pocket to develope one? (European partners aren't covering the cost of the F136).