tflash

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.

When the launching aircraft is "smart" enough, you can even deploy unguided bombs with high precision. The TERPROM navigation system in Harrier GR.7 onwards allowed for terrain elevation correction on the CCIP pipper. The main difference is the altitude at which you can do a precision bombing: with an unguided bomb, you will have to go a lot lower, making you more vulnerable. If my memory is right, the GR.7 in A'stan was often loaded with one Paveway II and one dumb airburst bomb; it later shifted to two Paveway IV.

Maybe because the hamster is not travelling at Mach 20 in suborbital space?

I'm really into littoral warfare, both with Ka-50 and A-10C. In attach two small, quick-and-dirty missions involving naval attacks on Poti. BTW did you guys notice the new Tranatul corvette 3D model and its very nice damage modelling? Cool! We now need AV-8B or Hornet for a next DCS title! FT Coastal Battle inverted.miz FT Coastal Battle.miz

I agree whith what is said above, but let's not underestimate stealth either. Suppose you can fly in Lockon online with a modded plane that is detected a few seconds later, I guess you would sign up for that. In many scenario's it would make a dead or alive difference. Don't forget the F-117 and the B-2 DID enter denied airspace AND hit a lot of targets. The B-2 recently went into Libya at a moment there was no coalition air dominance yet and a large portion of the Air defenses were still alive and kicking. I agree the Serbian mobile SA-6 faired much better than their static SA-2/SA-3 counterparts in survivability (much more so than in effective air defense performance), but the best protection for the Serb ground forces proved to be ... stealth tactics.

Well, many countries are still in Vietnam era then. Even in OIF most heavy SAM installations were not being moved around. I agree S-300 and Patriot are semi-mobile and have relatively short setup times. So in theory you could be moving them around all along the conflict, but that isn't very realistic. Patriot batteries in OIF were quite static, since priority is offering coverage, not earning miles. I guess youi're more lucky with moving around shorad's.

Well, the F-117 was'nt really meant to directly engage a SAM site. The whole clue was to engage a high-value site, like a C&C bunker, by evading the SAM coverage protecting it. The whole point of stealth is that the radius of discovery becomes much smaller, so the SAM coverage has a lot of holes. Since most heavy SAM batteries are static and already located by intel, the F-117's flight plan consisted in flying in between the coverage zones. The whole idea was that an F-22 would be able to directly engage an advanced SAM site by flying very high and dropping a jdam at supersonic speeds, so that it is launched outside the discovery cone. There is no evidence that this has turned out to a real operational capability yet however. The best ways to engage SAMS is by (stealth) cruise missiles and by Growlers with HARM missiles. In Libya, if I'm right Tomahawk missiles and later Storm Shadow and HARM missiles took out air defenses, the B-2 stealth bombers went rather after airfields. Very nice is also to sneak out air defense radars with attack Helicopters, as was done by Apaches in Desert Storm.

Cool stuff!

Well, I posted this earlier but didn't get any reaction. I'm still intrigued by the "only one GPS round" quote. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=77207

What a sad loss. RIP

I agree that we shouldn't overestimate the development problems. There are in fact very few mishaps until now in the F-35 programme. Indeed, remember the heated discussions about F-15 cost, and the many mishaps with "widowmaker" F-104 and in the early days F-16, that just kept falling out of the sky. But I do not believe for a minute that F-35 will ever reach the projected sales. My guess is the order will be cut in half over the whole production run. They have plenty of time for this, and in fact this is what has happened to the orders for the previous and current fiscal years. We just need less tactical fighters in the mix than before. Today, when a tactical fighter drops a single bomb, a few dozens of people are watching it real-time from other airborne or remote assets. It's not really you and your wingman any longer. Cost is more of a problem today because you have to pay everything in advance due to the high integration. You could buy 3th/4th gen airframe relatively cheap and then just keep upgrading them. Upgrading an F-35 isn't supposed to be that easy.

Thanks for the info! Not only can I now land perfectly on diversion airfields, but I think my understanding of the basics has improved dramatically! I finally know things about the HSI that I should have known ages ago, and never quite really grasped.

He guys, I think that that sums up what I was missing: I was in the dark about the heading / miles and runway indications I got from the tower. Many thanks, I'll be trying this right away!

There is something I didn't quite understand in FSX, and I see I have the same problem in DCS. I have no problem with TACAN or ILS nav, to get the signals, indications on ADI and HSI etc. But I always get to the airfield quite off the mark, not aligned with the runway. In essence, when I have visual of the runway, I correct my course untill I am roughly aligned with it a few miles out and then indeed my ILS thingy works and guides me perfectly to touchdown. The HUD waypoint indicator goes to the center of the runway, and so is not helpfull at all to align with the runway axis from far out. In FSX, I see the runways lights from far and so I turn around the airfield untill I see that I am aligned with the right runway, see the green lights and land perfectly on ILS. But how do you do this all in zero visibility conditions? Are you guys turning around the airfield until you get the right bar alignment in the ADI from the ILS? Or do you get a heading from the tower that flies you to an intercept point? I have the impression the heading from the tower just is at the center, not a standoff point ideally suited to start the landing? I dunno if you understand my problem? I would think you need a point a few miles out BEFORE the runway from which to start the descent?