Will Russia ever make a fighter with S-Ducts?

No because ruskies dont understand feng shui for planes

File: DSC_1345-15.jpg (2MB, 3493x2316px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3493x2316px

supid fuckijng fatnik

>>31854827
>Will Russia ever make a fighter with S-Ducts?
>Tu-154
>fighter
Vatniks, funny as usual.

Su-47

>>31857375
>looks cool
>performs terribly
>unreliable
most russian jet ever senpai

>>31854642
they probably can't make their shit tier engines work properly with S-ducts.
people don't realize how many millions of hours goes into designing those.

>>31854642
no becuz china no.1

>>31854642
Probably not

Not worth it

>>31857366
>>31857375
Still waiting on an image from the front showing it has actual full s ducts and not radar blocker PAK fag meme

File: B-2_Spirit_original.jpg (2MB, 2000x1252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1252px

Why not put intakes on top? Then they wouldn't be visible from below, so you don't need S-ducts.

>>31859779
They drop down. The fans are lower than the intake.

File: 14430002801240.jpg (1MB, 2560x1706px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1706px

Will US ever make a fighter that's full sex?

File: su-47 (3).jpg (58KB, 990x637px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 990x637px

>>31854642
But they did.

File: 010205-F-1631A-001.jpg (698KB, 2000x1312px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 2000x1312px

>>31859826
But they did that decades ago

>>31859958
see
>>31859726

File: 14602861514911.jpg (303KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1500x1013px

>>31859970

Absolutely disgusting. Please refrain from posting.

File: 1442332028660.jpg (23KB, 396x508px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 396x508px

>>31859826
>fullback
>anything other than shit tier

File: su-47 (4).jpg (142KB, 1065x635px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1065x635px

>>31859983
The sweet denial. Just let it go.

File: su-34 (20).jpg (201KB, 1500x1010px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1500x1010px

>>31859991
>Your opinion
>Anything other than invalid
Poor joke, cuntladm8.

File: 14424898280492.jpg (658KB, 1452x981px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 1452x981px

>>31859991

Name a better fighter-bomber.

>>31859997
Still waiting

File: 20161016_002123_HDR~2.jpg (2MB, 2846x3424px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2846x3424px

>>31854642
For your consideration, the rear of said S-duct

Captcha related: airfield rayon

>>31860014
F-111, F-15E, Tornado to name a few

File: IMG_9777.jpg (72KB, 710x532px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 710x532px

How much longer until Russia figures out magical s-duct technology?

File: gripen_ungarian_rainbow_radom_2009.jpg (63KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 900x600px

>>31859779
>pull hard
>engine goes ded

File: 14774183186690.jpg (47KB, 698x438px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 698x438px

>>31860031

> to name a few

No, you literally couldn't come up with any more

> f111

shit

> f15

shit bomber

> tornado

shit

And we're talking about how they're shit compared to the 34 yeah, so don't get all aspie on me with stories about the F15 bombing a mudhut that one time.

>>31860045
just because it's better than the shit u 24 doesn't mean it's anything comparable to shit the west has had for decades

try harder next time

>>31860065

Name a western fighter bomber that has a microwave in the cabin.

File: sr-10 (3).jpg (491KB, 1400x933px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1400x933px

>>31860037
But they did.

>>31860084
Technically every single one with a radar has one.

>>31860065
Just because this western shit is better than F-105 doesn't mean it's anything comparable to Su-34.

>>31860103
Now you're just trying too hard.

File: Su-34_Hardpoint_&_Armament_arrangement.png (119KB, 700x820px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 700x820px

>>31860031
>retired everywhere. You might as well mentioned the Stuka
>bretty gud but no armor, microwave or toilet
>the ECR is a good SEAD plane, but the rest are just meh

>>31860088

Yeah, but how many of them can deliver fresh hot pockets, right after bombing some non-white subhumans?

>>31860147
>shit tier range
>shit tier payload
>b-b-but muh microwave

It's shit, get over it.

>>31860158
The fuck are you smoking?
>comparable combat radius to Strike Eagle, plus aerial refueling
>comparable payload, good variety, twelve hardpoints in total
>hot pockets to lessen crew fatigue
It's like you're a volunteer Boeing shill.

File: su-34 & il-76.jpg (177KB, 1436x1090px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1436x1090px

>>31860158
>1100+km range
>12000kg payload
>Armour
>Microwave
>Vastly superiour cockpit layout
>B-b-but muh feels
It's good, get over it.

File: 1477749425864.jpg (66KB, 640x418px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x418px

>>31857375
It's soviet, not Russian.

I swear to god, the next time an ace combat lover kid who mix Russia with Soviet union, I will strangle him in his sleep

>>31860267
Same shit, different name. Don't be so autistic.

>>31860267
The USSR was just Russia and its slave states.

>>31860192
>comparable
>only a couple hundred NMI inferior range
>less payload, less built in ECM, less built in targeting
>i-i-i-i-its just as good pls no bully

k

>F-22 best aircraft in the world ever
Rectangular nozzles are worn out by acoustic vibrations.
Major fuselage component needs to be cut apart in order to replace it.
Not even 3D TVC.

>>31860439
>Not even 3D TVC.
>Whining about it not having something that's only useful in air shows

>>31860267
Oh look, it's this clown again. It's a Russian aircraft made in Russia for Russians by Russians from a Russian design bureau named after a Russian.

>>31860366
But that's wrong you moron.

>>31860453

I would be all my belongings without doubt, if the situation was reversed, the F-22 had 3D TVC and the Su-35 / PAK-FA had rectangular nozzles, /k/ would be flooded with topics such as:

>top kek Vatniks BTFO, they can't even into 3D TVC
>Dumb Ruskie planes have to be cut apart because of design flaws.

Also, only taking the extra meme out of the context, while ignoring the flaws I just pointed out.

>>31860532

*bet
fuck

>>31860267
This

Russia is only 24 years old and yet is already a regional power. Pretty impressive.

>>31860532
And they'd all be wrong in your world.

Thankfully, we live in a world where that isn't true. So instead, we get every Americans saying 3DTV has no use outside of air shows, which is correct.

>>31859726
Still waiting for you to use your brain and a bit of geomerty and realize that the landing gear wont fit in unless its S-duct. Retard.

>>31860618
That's some nice proof you've got there.

>>31860625
Thats some nice lack of brain you've got there.

>>31860633
Still waiting

>>31854642

What's the engineering challenge about making a shitty ass duct?

I dont get this meme.

File: Soviet_aviation_excellence_banner.svg.png (7KB, 640x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 640x200px

>>31860737

Are these ducts S enough for you?

>>31860771
There is none.

That's why it's hilarious to see russia unable to produce them for the pak-fa and coming up with any reason under the sun for them not being on it.

>>31857375
>>31854827
>>31860087
Not fighters.

File: sukhoi-su-47-berkut-aguila-dorada-esquema.jpg (94KB, 1000x429px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1000x429px

>>31860776
>>31860737


Blyad wrong picture

>>31860786
Still not showing it from the inlet so you can't tell if it is a full s-duct or not, and it's still not a fighter

>>31860565
Maybe if they didn't start as the Soviet Union, then I would be impressed.

File: 1438223836367.jpg (102KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 540x720px

>>31860784
>Su-47
>Not a fighter

File: su-47 (1).jpg (175KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1680x1050px

>>31860780
But they can produce them.

>>31854827
>dumb fucking vatnik can't understand that the challenge lies in making a fixed geometry S-duct for SUPERSONIC aircraft

>>31860901
>never fitted with any munitions
>only ever meant to be a technology demonstrator

X-29 is now a fighter too then I guess.

>>31860565
>Russia is only 24 years old and yet is already a regional power. Pretty impressive.
If they hadn't started owning about 1/4 of the entire world, I might be impressed.

Brilliant example of full speed in reverse.

>>31860931

Calm down, fatnik.

I wouldn't even be talking about the speeds on your planes with s-ducts, their vatnik counter-parts are faster.

>>31860971
>I wouldn't even be talking about the speeds on your planes with s-ducts, their vatnik counter-parts are faster.

How can that be when Russia has no planes with S-ducts that aren't commercial airliners?

>>31860961

Russia's still too big? Were they supposed to give away even more land in '91 according to you? Jelly fatniks, never stop.

By the way the lease on Alaska is up, better give that shit back or it's nuke time.

File: dae.jpg (138KB, 980x1040px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 980x1040px

>>31860985
>lease

Come and take it then.

File: 14606535975790.jpg (173KB, 1280x861px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1280x861px

>>31860976

Russia's prototype 5th gen fighter has much better flight characteristics than either the F22 or the F35, s-ducts or not.

And it's still not flying on the final engines.

File: 1477051586696.jpg (515KB, 818x644px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 818x644px

How can China do it but not Russia?

File: 14558591054810.jpg (134KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1500x1013px

>>31861004

Clinton probably sold plans to China so they make a carbon copy. I'm excited for the Russian one much more than the chink knock-off.

File: 1462978977204.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>31861002
>doesn't have s-ducts
>b-b-b-b-but its totally faster i swear

>>31861004
China has a far more advanced aviation industry than Russia. It says a lot when China's industry had to start from scratch and is already superior to Russia in just the past 20 years.

>>31860945
>never fitted with any munitions
Yet has a weapons bay.
>only ever meant to be a technology demonstrator
Read a book. Su-47 is what was left of Su-27KM project.
>X-29
Bitch, please. X-29 couldn't carry any weapons, had shit range and was overall the definition of an experimental aircraft.

>>31860961
>started owning about 1/4 of the entire world
American education.

File: su-47 (2).jpg (62KB, 849x629px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 849x629px

>>31861004
But Russia can.

>>31861025
The only things gooks ever had, have now and will ever have are stolen technologies and MiG assistance.

File: 1464030640701.gif (3MB, 800x352px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 800x352px

>>31861082
>had a weapons bay

So anything with a hard point counts then, huh?

Even though the S-37 never had its rotary launcher installed and instead had weights there.

>b-b-b-but it was part of another project that was DOA that means it totally wasn't a technology demonstrator and billed as such by Sukhoi

kek

>couldn't carry any weapons

By your definition, it still had the room and placements for an internal cannon but just wasn't fitted with it, so it totally counts as a fighter

File: j-31.jpg (135KB, 2022x1181px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 2022x1181px

>thread about S-ducts devolved into a Youtube comment section arguing about Rusha vs. U,S&A
Is this how it normally goes on /k/?

Also what about the J-31? Any pics or info whether it has the concealed engine fan?

>>31861114
No, so it's a fighter. Unlike X-29. You'll have to deal with it and let it go.

>>31861193
Why can't you just accept that the X-29 was a fighter by your own definition?

>>31861203
Because it wasn't.

>>31861209
Howso?

It had space for weapons, just like the S-37 did. Simply because it was never fitted with them, like the S-37 never was, doesn't mean that it's not a fighter. :)

>>31861217
It was a tech demonstrator prototype in the fighter format.

>>31861282
Like the su47?

>>31861217
So so. It couldn't carry any weapons was a literal experimental aircraft and had specifications of one. Su-47 has weapons bay and specifications of a fighter. It is a fighter. Experimental, prototype, but still a fighter. X-29 is just experimental.

>>31861295
X-29 had space for a gun but it wasn't fitted. Su-47 had space for a rotary launcher but it wasn't fitted.

Both are fighters then.

>>31861340
X-29 couldn't carry any weapons, had specifications of an experimental aircraft and was a experimental aircraft. Su-47 could carry weapons, had specifications of a fighter and was an experimental fighter.

File: 7bc.jpg (23KB, 344x512px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 344x512px

>>31860149
>Yeah, but how many of them can deliver fresh hot pockets, right after bombing some non-white subhumans?

Is one of janitors Su-34 flight crew member? Or has Russian AF started to kidnap janitors to be used as slave soldiers? Either way they work for free.

>>31861372
>had specifications of an experimental aircraft and was a experimental aircraft

like the s37?