tflash

^^nice, great picture!

Something else: UK might revert to F-35B instead of F-35C. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs

Emmer, you keep posting X-35 images ... not very relevant anymore to F-35. The doors have completely changed.

^^ +1

I always had much fun with the Strike Fighters series, in this latest installment you fly the Tomcat. I wouldn't call it arcade, but it is a "light" sim indeed. It's more about gameplay and modding than about simulation accuracy.

Today first flight at Eglin: http://www.pnj.com/article/20120306/NEWS12/120306002/Eglin-s-first-F-35-sortie-takes-off-this-morning?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Super! Go Belgian Air Component!

As I recall the arguments that I have read in the press about the carrier issue, it boils down to this: - The F-35C has more payload and range than F-35B - weapon bays are larger, offering more weapon integration options - It could also be used by RAF as a long range strike aircraft, flying from land bases - It can takeoff and land on the Charles the Gaulle using cat & trap - adapting the Britisch carrier to cat & trap would allow Rafales to take-off and land from it. Hence Britain and France would operate two carriers together, and always have one available while one is in overhaul - F-35C is supposed to cost less than F-35B - F-35B can already land/takeoff on any carrier, also on WASP class carrier, maybe also on Mistral, and could do the same on Spanish and Italian vessels - has much more basing options, closer to the conflict - will be fielded much sooner than F-35C: this would mean less time having a carrier without planes - costly refit of carrier to cat & trap is not necessary and saves money - cat & trap operations are difficult and require substantial training. This would be detrimental to RAF usage - F-35B take-off and landing is supposed to be revolutionary simple compared to Harrier - cooperation with US is still possible, even on more carriers.

The UK MoD has a long history, not to say an impressive pedigree in botching up defense projects, but the carrier saga beats it all. I really wish we could zap to 2020 just to see on what ship which aircraft will be landing. :=)

Finally some good news: Eglin will start flying the jets!!! I guess F-35 is becoming a reality at last! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/02/29/national/a011600S11.DTL

Very unnerving that they can't pinpoint the exact cause; see this only one day older post: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/28/f-22-raptor-smoking-gun-not-found/ Shows just how complex these planes have become. Strangely enough, to me it adds credibility to LM's claim they are truly new generation fighters: breaking new ground means that you meet again the unexpected. I'm glad they are reviewing Jeff Haney's case. Absolutely beyond decency to blame the pilot when so much mystery is still unsolved.

Super! Very nice!

Thanks for the info JimMack! And of course I will give it a go when the P-51 is out!

Well, no need to keep arguing about this: I agree the main thing we need is radio communication woth other planes; so a VHF radio that can have the right frequenties would do the job.

Since I do like to fly the vanilla Su-25 often in Lockon, it's not that I would shy away from some rustic navigation. It's just that we live in the 21st century and it would be rather unrealistic if you would actually try to fly a P-51D in combat today, make the effort to remount the guns and get them going, and fail to install a GPS kit that you can buy for less than 1000$. And OK, GPS jamming does exist but is not really to be expected common in a scenario where you would be flying a P-51D today. The Collins pilots do not seem to me some newbies shying away from serious aviation, no?

To fly the P-51D today in DCS, I would expect some off-the-shelf avionics to be modelled; such as a modern radio and a GPS kit. See e.g. this video from 2:00 onwards

Look at the radios and GPS. Seems logical to include that if you fly a warbird today! ( hint hint )

Training at Eglin within a month? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/25/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2E8DP08Y20120225 That will be a great milestone, then it gets very real indeed!

250th C-130J delvered: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/02/20/Lockheed-delivers-250th-C-130J/UPI-80331329752235/ Imho the most relevant airplane ever!

Seems like a LM description of the F-35 to me ;)

To come back to topic, an mmW radar like the one on Longbow Apache would be very useful on an aircraft like A-10, if you were to fight tank concentrations. British Tornado jets hit multiple tanks in one pass in Libya using the mmW seeker on the Brimstone missile. A modern radar can track multiple targets, assign them automatically to each individual weapon so that you can ripple launch them in a volley. A current A-10C cannot do this in all weather like the Tornado or the Apache.

Super Swift!!!!

Wow, did you see the chopper pickup to climbers at the cliff? Incredible! kind of mountain bus stop.

Nice article indeed on one of Russia's smartest programmes! Specially the Ka-52 / Mistral combo will pack some relevant punch!

Interesting quote from: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/02/116_104306.html "Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin’s director of the Korea F-35 Campaign, also acknowledged that the external carriage may come as an option for Korea. “Lockheed Martin did not cancel it, the U.S. government prioritized it,” Howard said, explaining why doubts have been raised over the development of the F-35’s external hard points. “The F-35 is designed to carry weapons internally. That’s what it does, and that’s why it is stealthy.” He argued that the F-35’s primary attribute, the ability to penetrate into the enemy’s territory without being detected, will be significantly compromised if Korea chooses to mount weapons externally. “If you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy. That’s not normally how you are going to operate F-35s,” he said. Not that I am wiling to overestimate this, but it seems a departure from the previous perception that the F-35 would be stealthy on first-day-of-war, and once air opposition degraded, would be loaded with external payload for more traditional tasks. It now seems the new capabilities will be the core mission and perhaps also the basic way to deal with any mission. The classic missions will in that case be redefined in a "5th generation" way. In that sense the F-35 does'nt "replace" 4th gen aircraft, but it will in the long run redefine air combat and make these 4th gen systems and the approach they are based on obsolete. We are definitely talking late 2000twenties then.