tflash

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?

Enough with those 4th gen toyplanes and their fancy arcade-like avionics! We need F-4E Phantom II! Don't be fooled that it is a two-seater, since the "GIB" had nothing to do whatsoever except enjoying the ride!

Latest report cites pilot error, inadequate training. Pilots did not recognize the stall situation and did faulty nose-up: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/29/360146/af447-crew-not-trained-for-high-altitude-stall-investigators.html http://lci.tf1.fr/france/faits-divers/vol-rio-paris-le-bea-donne-ses-recommandations-6610099.html More details: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/awx/2011/07/29/awx_07_29_2011_p0-353142.xml&headline=AF447%20Pilots%20Never%20Formally%20Identified%20Stall I never realized they do not have AOA indication in the cockpit!

Nice vid!

F-35C first catapult launch F-35C first catapult launch:

Exactly what happened to the Japanese; they lost 18 F-2B aircraft in the tsunami at Matsushima AB. An incredibly costly blow; they hope to recover about 6 of them.

I agree: the AF Times article has been covered by most other military news outlets, but the question remains how solid the claims are. But it could be that the real new thing is that somehow the F-22 OBOGS system has a dysfunction or an above-average contamination level. In which case they would be a step closer to a solution. To me, it just shows how complex that kind of designs are. It makes you understand why today's fighter programmes take so long to mature.

Indeed; I didn't want to link it all together, the real cause of the contamination in the pilots blood is not yet established. What is for sure, is that while we are fairly confident about the health hazards of a classic jet, there is still much to learn about the risks of composite airframes. It gets compounded by the fact fuel is used as coolant allmost everywhere in a plane like F-22 and F-35. There is a risk of small leaks where HAZMAT materials get in contact with composites and sophisticated coating materials. Anyway, virtual flying is still safer for your health!