tflash

The new BAe interim helmet for F-35: http://www.gizmag.com/f-35-helmet-display-bae/20216/picture/145521/ I wonder how they fly now, since there is no HUD and the helmet is not ready?

As I understood it, the production lines are still running (for export orders), but the USAF is indeed not buying anymore for about half a decade. In my - very humble - opinion that was a decade to soon. If the Taiwan deal doesn't materialize, F-16 production will effectively come to a halt.

I guess it would be very unwise to shut down the F-15, F-16 and F-18 production lines early. :=) The real solution to the 5th generation problems is to take the pilot out of the cockpit and make them UCAV's.

Belgian -16 solo display team

Great!!!!

Gosh, that's not good: http://rt.com/news/nato-missing-libya-weapons-875/

What are they wearing on the helmet?

I would call it a great welcome when senior forum members react to one of my first posts? On the issue itself I have the impression there are a lot of misconceptions about DCS:A10C. In many ways it does feel like FC3, in particular when you fly Su-25T and A-10A in FC. It is also absolutely not a difficult game to play, I really do not understand why some seem hesitant to adopt it. It amounts to the same thing as in FC: RTFM. DCS:BS is different imho since it is quite something else to fly a chopper instead of an airplane, and it can be damn hard to fly (still being a wonderfull sim). But DCS:A10C is really within reach of all FC players: it just takes a few more buttons and you are Go! Take for an example the startup: I just printed out a short checklist that some kind forum member compiled, I have it in front of me and I just hit the buttons and it was a done deal. After about 10 times I didn't need the paper anymore. So really what is the point? ED just kept developing state of the art sims, why would we complain about that? (The cockpit shadows eg are an absolute delight that you must experience, period.) I still fly Su-25T, A-10A and A-10C during the same evening, I often make the same mission in both sims.

Computing can't change physics, but smart computer assisted controls can get the optimum out of a wing + aileron +spoliers + slats + tailplanes + rudder + evt. canards. The aerofoil generated in flight is the result of the relative positions of all these controled surfaces, not simply the basic form of the wing. To put it simply: the F-16's wings are just flat, the bernouilli effects are generated by the leading edge flaps / flaperons, through FBW. As it happens, the F-35 has much more powerfull computers on board that calculate the optimal position of each surface continously during flight, as is the case with Typhoon. The flight envelope of modern jets is enlarged by new software releases, not by changes to the planforms.

Horrible catastrophy indeed! .

Take into account that the aerodynamic design of the F-35 is made with today's immense computing power, something not available in the time of Sprey and Wheeler. It is also an unstable, dynamic design. So I guess their F-105 comparison is a little simplistic. Let alone the teardrop comparison proposed in this thread.

I'ld like to get it up and running again on my rig, but no joy thus far. I loved the game!

You would need lock after launch capability, but I thought the Asraam has precisely that.

Anyway it has long been established that the size of F-15 is about the right size for the given range. That is why the Hornet was stretched into the Super Hornet, and why the F-35 turns out to be bigger than F-16.

I agree . Your point becomes very clear in this photo: Look how nimble the F-16 is compared to the F-35

Could it be the F404 has a higher noise frequency, and so sounds louder?

Very nice study photo to compare the F-35C and Super Hornet: Just as the Super Hornet is my current favourite, I like the F-35C lines very much; I find it most balanced of the 3 JSF variants, with ist larger wings.

I love the Hornet, its engines just sounds like a jetliner, no?

hello GG, First of all sorry I missed two pages of the discussion, I guess a time zone problem; but I think indeed you misinterpreted somewhat my post. I am not making claims about the PAK-FA. And certainly not that there is some magical trick there unknown to us, since that would be rather a non-statement. In fact I do not really want to reject that canting fins or hiding fan blades or making facetted and aligned planes can contribute to stealth. As a matter of fact, this is precisely what Boeing is proposing for the Silent Eagle. I just wanted to warn that these external indications that we tend now to use to judge the stealth properties of an aircraft rather help to judge whether an aircraft is of a particular geenration rather than really assessing stealth. A canted fin CAN contribute to stealth, but you have to do massive calculations to know how you have to cant and align it to get an overall relevant RCS reduction. If simply applying these rules of thumb would generate a stealth plane, than the whole competition would be fielding these types of aircraft with ease. Which is not the case. Conversely, I would be rather surprised that Russian engineers would be developping Pak-Fa, considering the massive calculations and anechoic chamber visits it presumes, and afterwards would discover "heck, we all forgot about the simple rule of hiding the fan blades, so our plane isn't stealthy!" That just doesn't make sense. So we may be puzzled at best why we still see the blades, but it doesn't learn us much.

I guess you know perfectly well that the stealth properties of the surface alignment of even the F-117 does not just amount to the canted surfaces, aligned egdes and other visible clues. Any airplane has canted surfaces when it evolves through the air. It is the massive calculations of which reflections actually happen, in such a way that there are dissipation and cancellation effects that are at the core of stealth. And yes, some simple measures can already help but they don't make the aircraft LO. This means indeed conversely that an aircraft that at first looks is not stealthy in reality could have a rather good RCS. If the F-35 were shown to you experts in the timeframe of the F-117, you would all have said it isn't stealthy since it has curved lines and we had just learned that you needed facetted lines a la F-117 to be stealthy. With the B-2, it was proved you could yield the same deflection results with a curved form. Sorry, but NONE of you "knew" this beforehand. In reality, F-117 era computers didn't even allow to make the necessary calculations for that. It is also possible to yield cancellation results from opposing surfaces that are cleverly mounted, as is the case in the inlet ducts of Super Hornet. In any scenario, it is calculation and modelling that counts. And "visible fan blades produce a higher RCS" is indeed a good rule of thumb but it is not really a correct statement. It is a gross simplification for saying that the fan blades usually generate high radar returns. That is, before some designers knew how you can calculate what exactly happens with these returns at certain frequencies. And can act upon that knowledge.

As long as you don't think that something that looks stealthy is therefore stealthy. Compare an F-104 starfighter and an F-35 in frontal view and then say to me which one "looks" the more stealthy to you. It is fantastic that YOU know the laws of propagation so well that your Mark 1 Eyeball helps you out where the US needed major advances in computing power to actually be able to achieve this. I guess they will call you, no, they should have done so already! :D

Is there any news on the plans to modify the bays of F-35A so that it can hold 6 Amraam missiles? It's an old rumour but I read it again in AFM september 2011 issue 282 p. 60. A quick Google search learn you it has been discussed on F-16.net already years ago.

I still play FC2 a lot; but I must say that while for me Ka-50 (which I enjoy to fly) is a totally different game, DCS A-10C is indeed to me also a sequel to FC2. Has to do with the fact that I already turned to mud moving in FC2: I find working in three dimensions in A2A is psychologically to much for my system: I get disoriented very fast and end up as simple bait. In A2G, I can really fly the plane as it should be flown and keep SA. The mission editor improvements really did it for me, and of course the A-10 is such a joy to fly!

Nice catch!

Sad! RIP.