EscCtrl

True but carpet-bombings provoked shear terror because of their randomness which was a useful advantage. Unless you're a dictator in a bunker I doubt many civilians would be scared - after all in war you want to scare the population to start a revolt to attack the government with it's own people. After writing that I realised that same trade-off is true with nuclear arms too (though to the average person all nukes are probably the same - a nightmare)

Ah fair enough - glad somebody at the department of defence for your sake was thinking more than I was :P All Nukes suffer the same consequences of energy dissipation among the z-axis though. The Tsar bomb was a nice example that over exaggerated the idea I wanted to get across :P By the way here is the website I mentioned concerning multiple warhead detonation (scroll down awhile) http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html if anyone's interested.

Because they can? Surely you could program a satellite to locate and pin-point the contrail and shape of a B-2 as it travels over oceans? you mention ICBMs can be spotted by satellite, I assume it's in this way. Unless there is some unlucky sod who has to watch hours of silo footage. I thought yield went down as most of the power is lost through the spherical shape of the blast. It would be far more efficient to have several bombs of the same power than one. The tsar bomb (50MT one) sent most of it's power off to space it was so big. It's difficult to focus a sphere onto a more or less flat plane. There's a web link about this and I'll search my old computer soon for it if you would like.

Is that because the current inventory of ICBMs has not been updated since the coldwar or simply because the vessel on which the warhead is delivered (i.e. by aircraft) would have those advantages regardless? Can the Nighthawk carry GBU-28s, the bunkerbusters and if so would that be insufficient to render a silo ineffective?

Starting to make sense now thanks. Was trying out a hornet addon on FSX (yeah I know these addons, and even FSX aren't that realistic but it's a good comparison between very different aircraft on the same physics engine) and it's definitely better seeing as the game is less likely to restart due to not looking at my g-load readout during a turn and exceeding a limit.

I do believe none of those SEAD, striker or fighter sweep aircraft contain a nice desk to spread you're flight papers out across, room to stretch your legs on that long flight, maybe even go for a jog (if you're a contortionist) and I think the B2 even has a toilet (Maybe that was another plane) Doesn't sound like it's a failure to me. I remember sitting in a harrier at an airshow and complaining to my dad the seat was too itchy, the pilot scowled and said 'well least you don't have to put up with that, that cramped, stuffy cockpit is my office!' :D By the way, why would you use a B2 for the nuclear role? It's slow compared to an ICBM, I doubt it has the range of one and the warhead would be smaller. Even a submarine positioned near by would have a quicker response? Or would the B2 be used in a planned attack where time is not such an issue? Surely it's cheaper to build low RCS ICBMs?

So how then, do they achieve a maximum speed that isn't so badly affected by the differing pressure at various altitudes? If I read that graph correct for the blackbird than that shows that the SR-71 has a pretty difficult time trying to go as fast as it likes at low speeds and the blackbird is as old as say a tomcat? Or was it that the blackbird was always designed with high speed at high altitude so was not built as strong as a fighter? Thanks, hopefully no one else is as confused as I am then.

Yeah it is the same data they have. Yeah that's one of the surprising flight characteristics of the aircraft - that it can go so fast yet has very narrow IAS range. Thanks for providing the information, but now I'll admit I am confused so I'll keep quiet for awhile :P (and I won't use manuals written in other languages as examples ever again)

Was that not March 12th this year, as in this has already happened? If it's next year why would it take so long to prepare this flight?

I see what you're saying and that's what I thought too but it can overspeed at much lower. At higher altitude a faster speed gives a lower IAS reading as the pressure is lower - so a plane that overspeeds at say 700kmh sea level will overspeed at say 1400kmh altitude i.e. above mach 1 (yet the IAS will read 700kmh and the plane will feel the same overspeeding pressure as 700kmh sea level). Hope that makes sense. Well I really don't have that much knowledge of this so will stop digging up apparently inane evidence and do more reading, hope someone who does knows for sure can settle this in the mean time.

Ok this is from the Russian fulcrum manual. Notice how the aircraft will overspeed sooner at lower altitudes. This is not modelled in the game as I know you have to be doing about 1500/1600kmh in the game to overspeed regardless of altitude. This suggests it will happen at 700kmh at sea level. I can't speak Russian but I'm guessing that's what the graph shows.

Maybe I was wrong then, it's the fact that, that takes forever to kick in though and it happens at a ridiculous speed. From the statistics of aircraft I've been looking at it suggests they would overspeed far sooner at low altitude though. Also I don't think altitude has any impact in the game, correct me if I'm wrong? I'm having trouble finding flight envelope data for the aircraft in the game so it's hard to compare data for the blackbird and try and educatedly guess how the LOMAC aircraft should react. I have a flight manual for the fulcrum to but it's in Russian.

By the way what is the difference between KIAS and KEAS? Al lot of this stuff is new to me and I might be all wrong. This is from the flight manual of the blackbird (not sure if this is copyright because I got it somewhere that didn't quite say ;) so I'll remove it if the mods so wish) This graph shows the maximum possible mach at a given altitude due to air density. Note there is an artificial restriction to ensure longevity of the airframe and a maximum limit i.e. what the plane actually cannot exceed. N.B. The plane can NOT exceed (or even go near to) mach 1 below 15kft This is different from what you said about it doing mach 1+ at any altitude (000BIGMAC000) As for the mach tuck you mentioned I'll have to read into that as it does not sound too familiar. Is that anything to do with the complications of transonic flight where different parts of the aircraft are receiving subsonic or supersonic airflow whilst the collect aircraft is flying near mach 1.0?

If by that you mean the ability to turn at speed then no. I'm talking about the fact that a supersonic plane can't always be supersonic e.g. it might be able to do it at altitude where the air is less dense so the aircraft can fly at such an actual speed it is supersonic without going over it's IAS limit. Not to be confused with the fact that sound travels slower at altitude anyway. Look at this data for the blackbird for instance: We all no the blackbird can fly much faster than the 400-500knots quoted above in terms of 'actual distance traveled divided by time taken', but the aircraft can't attain this at a low altitude where the air is too dense. IAS is measured using air density (I think in most systems it is the amount of airflow over a wire causing it to cool down and thus reduce resistance - which is measured, which is proportional to density) density is affected by altitude and airspeed (and it can increase close to mach speeds, an inconsistancy explained in that link in the first post) It's hard to explain but if anyone knows what I'm on about would you mind lending a hand in wording this, or directing people to a good link?

You mean when you fly up real high then afterburn down to sea level and go so fast any inputs have no effect? That's not the same. The link explains well and if anyone has FSX they'll get a better idea.

I've been playing FSX recently with some addon aircraft that have supersonic capabilities, which has made me think recently. I have never played a flight simulator that has modeled IAS limits to the extent FSX has. I was wondering in future versions of Lockon with AFM (which has been mentioned) will overspeeding be modeled? Yes it is annoying in FSX when you overspeed and the game stops and restarts (obviously don't program that bit :D) In case I've worded this badly what I mean is that a plane may have an IAS (indicated airspeed limit) of say 600knots which is slower than mach 1 at sea level (or is for the sake of my case as I don't work in knots) this means if you wanted to fly mach 1 plus, you'd have to fly at a higher altitude with lower air density (less pressure on the aircraft) where the IAS would appear lower even though your actual speed is faster. Whilst this might sound like an overly complex piece of programing that is only going to ruin your flying skills well tough because real pilots have to put up with it and this is after all a simulation. For some background reading for which to structure you're discussion on click here http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/instruments/q0251.shtml :P

Which 'stan would this be?

I imagine a pilot would be able to feel if his brakes are on or not with practice.

Imagine the trees have AKs and are running add 100points to your score sheet for each one you think you've hit. At the end of the day we can compare scores :D

Not to get involved in your little discussion but I found that particular quotation amusing :P

How does it look with heatblur?

I think this is the problem most people are talking about - and it was mentioned on another ECM blinker hater thread that blinking to some extent may have some IRL use as you confirmed. I rarely fly online but did so tonight, carried no ECM so not to be accused of anything and managed to fly through the minefield of it in the mountains, score a kill and fly home without a problem.

I was implying if you were a few feet off the ground and above a nice road :P I recall a long time ago there was a TV show in the UK about the possibilities of fitting light aircraft (in this case a Cessna) with a parachute so that if the engine cut out the WHOLE plane including the occupants would fall down semi-safely to the ground. Never heard about it since so not sure if any prototypes got built.

How many have crashed so far? and how many have been built? Haven't heard from this project in so long assumed it was cancelled - thought the same with the commanche only to find out it's seeing action soon.

Ah right, so it is actually slightly worse then a standard twin-prop aircraft. As for the low altitude idea - well if you're going low enough and your engines cut out - start skidding instead :P