That is not at all what anybody is planning on using… The “newest flanker” (Su-30SM2) even uses AL-41F-1S, not AL-41F.
Might have just done what? Revived a 2+ decade old failure of an engine and magically shoved it into a Flanker?
You’re joking, right?
Sorry to say, but that’s quite possibly the easiest thing to do.
Continuing on the max speed issue:
I found another example that uses a 1.1 multiplier instead of 1.05:
JF-17
According to the manufacturer’s website the max Mach number is 1.6 and Max IAS is 700 kt
In the game the limits are Mach 1.76 and 1,430 km/h (772 kt)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/TqXdv98sP5rQ
It’s getting interesting …
@DirectSupport @MythicPi
1 Like
Using strawman to reject a report is quite funny
Spoiler
I never said that the “1400 kph” is the “rip speed”
I said it’s the structural limit as specified by the manual:
Spoiler
The rip speed in the game of course will be calculated by applying the 1.05 rule that is applied to all planes. There’s no reason why Su-27 should be different (And use a 1.1 multiplier).
Yes the plane doesn’t instantly explode when going over the structural limit (Vne), but neither does any other plane …
“The source only says that at this speed one can fly indefinitely” is also meaningless … Of course it can (like almost all aircrafts can), when the limit is due to structural strength and not due to the engine, as specified by the manual …
I escalated the situation with the “higher ups” and I’ve been basically told that this guy is a member of the Russian team and that “he says that the source doesn’t say anything about Vne”
@Gunjob Perhaps you can try to explain the situation to them …
It quite literally says “Max speed = 1400 km/h. Reason: Structural strength”
Spoiler
Not sure who pulled the strings, but thank you
@DirectSupport @MythicPi
Now we have to see if it gets shut down by the devs or not …
1 Like
why TF does it say not a bug twice?
To really emphasize that it’s not a bug
3 Likes
Gunjob
May 10, 2025, 3:07pm
311
Labeling bugs out sometimes when we click remove and add in quick succession.
5 Likes
@Gunjob I found some sources (pictures, video and informations) which may prove (maybe not) that Su-34NVO may have thermal cam. Problem is that some of them are from recent conflict. Is way how to share found data?
Gunjob
May 12, 2025, 10:39am
313
Hey, if its from a current conflict it can’t be used apologies.
It had that thermal cam before conflict. Only most of pictures/video which probably prove that are from current conflict. Maybe I can post only part of data which are not from current conflict and remained data as direct message for people who will request them?
I hope you’re not talking about this picture.
No. The M443 Raduga-VM, from what I’ve seen, doesn’t have the ability to look ahead. Only straight down from the UKR-OE container.
Zhrnutie
I am not sure if this is UKR-OE container but on bottom side we can see rectangular window.
Zhrnutie
Su-34 NVO (Fullback) :: Ruslet
That looks like just a contrast TV feed and not FLIR/Thermals
1 Like
Yeah it is contrast TV. Looks like that.
1 Like
I found video where is shown that container:
Dunno if this is the right thread for it, but either way :)
Thats not fuel tank. Fuel tanks are that white ones. Containers from UKR series are colored blue with a gray cone. For example UKR-RT container:
1 Like
На территории России и Беларуси завершились военные учения в рамках Союзного государства «Запад-2021». В маневрах, в частности, были задействованы сверхзвуковые истребители-бомбардировщики Су-34, во внешнем оснащении которых очевидцы заметили...
Yep its probably UKR pod combined with fuel tank.