again, common sense
Yes, common sense, the thing that says that if you do not know that something is not coming, you do not know that something is not coming.
You can go in and edit the cockpit textures yourself. Also you are ignoring all the other evidence showing that the leak is obviously fake.
1 Like
Not only that, you can photoshop it and edit it after the fact too. Don’t even need to touch the cockpit stuff.
3 Likes
What seems more likely of some of the proposals in order:
- MiG-29 SMT + R77 (immensely disappointing and an easy add).
- Su-27SK/SM + R77 (less intense, gives gaijin options and room).
- Su-30/30M + R77 (aircraft a little too advanced, but would give Gaijin an easy add of F-14D or F-15C).
- MiG-25 with whatever stupid loadout they could concoct.
- Su-27 Early + no Fox 3’s
Can I say the MiG-25 isn’t coming because I know for a fact that it isn’t? No. Can I say with high confidence that the MiG-25 isn’t coming because it makes little to no sense (common)? Yes.
2 Likes
Su 27SK Is an export downgrade of the Su 27S ( worse electronichs ): no r77.
For the russians instead of the 30 you could add the 27PU.
The Su-27SK is just an export Su-27S. It can’t use R-77s.
The Su-27PU is the Su-30.
Yeah with worse electronics
That’s actually a common misconception. Su-30 is Su-30, it’s closest related project comes from the Su-27UB, which was converted, originally, from a two-seater trainer to a two-seater interceptor. Prototypes Blue 05 and Blue 06 were the first of it’s kind, and the proof of concept designation was T10PU-5.
“They are sometimes referred to as Su-27PU’s by the popular press - a designation that never existed”. Warbird Tech Series - Vol 42 “Su-27 Flanker” Pg.41- Gordon and Davidson.
The same book, page 38, says the SK was capable of using R-77’s, as it was marketed to Indonesia as being capable of accepting them. The SM which is not an export version had the same capability. I don’t see why they couldn’t include the SK as it’s still a Russian aircraft, I guess they could make it a premium with different radar/armament.
1 Like
I did a little research of my own, and you are correct about the Su-27SK, however, from what I read the PU is a modernised UB, which is a trainer.
The whole program deviated from the Su-27UB enough to be considered it’s own prototype for production. That was designated the T10PU-5.
T10-1 for example, was the designation for the very first prototype Flanker.
T10PU-5 was approved for mass production sometime between 1988-1992. The production model was designated Su-30. It was never officially designated Su-27PU, like I said above.
So, I’m correct.
This seems to be a recurring issue with a lot of Russian and Chinese vehicles, where their can be multiple names listed for the same vehicle, with only 1 being correct.
It’s more that they have multiple names with only one being official.
1 Like
what id give for a missile bus for russia
1 Like
Tbh the flankers get really confusing. Between alphabetical mistranslations (P and R, H and N), media mixing up designations, early Russian Federation trying to rebrand Soviet tech for the export marketplace (cough cough, T-90), prototype designations, and NATO codenaming, it all gets mixed up, so I usually get involved in the threads here to clarify.
Often I find that there is false reporting in the media that leads too multiple names and confusion. Like the Type 99A sometimes being called the Type 99A2 when it first came out, or the BMPT Terminator being given two different names for the old and new redesign, and then ofc the misnaming of the export T-72 Terminator as the original
If by PU you mean T10PU-5, yes. If by PU you mean Su-27PU, no.