Camoman

She is farkin beautiful.. thanks for the pic. Anymore??

Thanks for the links. Looks great and it features one of the best jets ever. ;)

as a few have said the only unjammable thing is a hunk of lead. anything using electronics as IMO going to be outclassed by a anti-technology (I hope u get my drift with that term) and your back to square one. Whilst all the seekers and radars and such will one day be useless until they invent another, a good ol hunk of metal will always find its target when used in the right hands.

IMO (dependant on server rules of course) if there are enemy there to defend it then try as u like to take out that capability becasue it will help your fight. But if ou enter a server and the only opposing force is the AWACS then leave it for another time when it will be a challenge to get to it and a time when you wont be taking it unfairly from those about to enter the server to give you a fight.

LOL yes Cali I hear you but I think ill have to keep dreamin bout that one. 2 squadrons of raptors, 2 squadrons of strike eagles and when they finally come along a squadron of JSF to bring up the rear. show me the money...

I was in the impression that the C model was better in both respects. F35A F35C Max Wing loading 130lb/sqft 90lb/sqft Combat Radius 590nm 700nm I know wing loading aint the answer to manouverability but I was in the impression that wing loading was a major factor. Although a lower wing loading generally means better manouverability it also means slower acceleration higher drag, etc. Also (does??) the lower max wing loading of the C model mean it cant carry as much payload (say as the A model)..thus limiting it's A2G capability despite its larger range.

I think its silly puttin all our eggs in one basket. You cant choose a single airframe to fill all the roles. One for air superiority and one for strike. If separate airframes are chosen then you will choose the best for each separate role because these roles are different. If the same airframe is chosen then you will compromise in both areas. It would be more expensive to have different craft but what is the cost of having a defence. Some ppl say that the threat aint there but as soon as you dismiss it something will pop up. And the US is a good ally as the article states but we cant rely on others to protect our borders.. especially when they are extending themselves already and will be for many years to come.

There are so many god damn if's and but's in this topic that I dont think we will ever be able to paint a clear picture. BUT, the one thing that still aint making sense to me is replacing the current mix of hornets and pigs for a single airframe. We aussies really are cutting a fine line with the proposed service lives of the current airframes and the entry of the JSF.

Well said mate and I hope these two thigns are looked at as it will really help out alot.

From janes (I am lucky to have subscription access to all the aircraft bits through my uni): "both rudders turned in at take-off and landing to provide extra nose-up trim effort" So this is the correct answer given by many already. As far as the Swiss aircraft goes my opinion is that it is a dirty config of controls which isn't very efficient and he is flying like this to allow quick recovery from such a high alpha. By turning them outwards he is generating a pitch down trim which will assist as soon as he needs to pitch down. He doesn't need lift as he would on take off by turning them in as there is a large amount of lift available from the AoA.

Thx mate, I really liked the carrier qual one though.

Yes it is very much about money investment and national security. Quite precisely how much money have we got to obtain the best piece of equipment for national security. The people who make the decisions have a budget which planes will be built according to and if their budget is as large as the US defence departments then what I am saying is that im sure that the capabilities afforded are quite top notch, i.e. the F22 surely can sustain a 9G turn. Any new capability must come from people who go to work (and get paid most often than not) to research and implement them. It sure dont come from some big black hole and just pop into existance and without money to fund all the material, wages, labs, prototypes, etc, etc.. Or from another perspective, do you think anybody would invest billions in this new fighter with all its stealthy bells and whistles and then find *when* it gets into a turning fight it cant perform and they lose the whole package over the ommitance of a simple mechanical capability?? These people would not be spending thier money unless they were sure they were buying the best it could afford them. So yes IMO capability can be judged to a large extent by money and national security requirements since the more money you have the more capabilities you can research and implement into the final product.

Threads like this are quite ammusing. I was enjoying the reading until I saw this comment. I welcome you to prove me wrong but do you honestly believe that this plane would be made incapable of sustaining 9G. HEELLLOOO lets go spend billions investing in the security of the nation and just forget to add this basic capability. I may be wrong but commonsense tells me otherwise. This is a 5th gen fighter and as such should be capable of all that has come before and more..In this day I don't really see this as being a difficulty anyways with all the materials we are developing and it is well reported that the pilots are becoming the limiting factor when it comes to G limits, not the airframe.

Gr8 vid, I really not sure why but it gave me a bit of a laugh?!!?! Its ok, ok, oooook and no damn it she's in the drink. so close but soo far away.

Well I could have scoured the internet and probably found it myself but I thought it would be better to get some discussion here on what im unsure about since there are alot of seemingly well sourced people around. Taken from RAAF news website; _____________________ Q. On the stealth side, there was some reporting in the press that the stealth characteristics of the aircraft have been downgraded. A. There has been no downgrading of JSF stealth characteristics. This issue came up when one letter was changed on one PowerPoint slide on a publicly released document from the JSF Project Office. It read LO instead of VLO as a result of a security classification issue at the time. The slide has been changed back to VLO. The aircraft has been and always will be a very low observable aircraft. Q. How stealthy is this aircraft when compared to a true stealth fighter? A. The JSF is a true stealth fighter. There are only two out there, the F-22 and the JSF. Specific capabilities in terms of radar are highly classified. http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4814/topstories/story01.htm ____________________ My question primarily relates to the quote "The JSF is a true stealth fighter" and although this is supported by the two answers given in the release, it was my opinion that the JSF had good but limited stealth abilities. In this release it is stated that the aircraft is VLO. Can any of you guys give a better answer than this or better define what this means in terms of the JSF abilities(I know it means very low observability) with regard to air and ground based threats?? He pretty much puts it in the same category as the F-22 which to me seems a bit bizarre. Do you think he is doing this as a political move to keep the masses who are unsure about the details happy, or can these two aircraft really be comparable in this stealth ability.. Would the JSF really have a small enough RCS to be a true stealth fighter. Im keen to know because although I have heard it has got stealth ability it is new to me to call it a true stealth fighter!! Also as a side note are there any aussies (or others for that matter) here who agree with the sole JSF option?? It seems a bit risky to me. Maybe im missing a crucial point in the debate but thats why im asking the question-->to get more insight. Camoman

Thx for the gr8 pics mate.

All the way out is a long way, how do you see details. I found once I started using it that i was zoomed in more than usual anyway because of the ease to just glance where you want to look. Anyways I use the numpad to zoom.

I land by eye unless of course I cant see through the fog. It would be good for you to come online though.

It would probably be helpful if you outlined which aircraft you prefer to fly. Although landing is essentially the same when you master it, since you are still learning it, it is best for us to know which plane you fly so more specific details such as speed and alpha can be given. It will be much easier for you to learn one setting of these and then apply the same techniques across the range of aircraft.

R u using the F15 cockpit for the F5. If so how?

Thanking you. And I agree hornets for life.

Yeah way OT lol but from my experience (and I guess it differs for every1 and of course no g suit as it wasn't a hornet:( ): Pulling 1Gs - Admiring the scenery on the way to the training area. Pulling 2Gs - Steep turn 60deg bank but dont feel bod cos ur lookin down on all the pretty paddocks Pulling 3Gs - Commin outta dat loop and ur gettin squished uncomfortably. Can hold it for a while though. Pulling 4Gs - Oops pulled a bit too hard comin out and started goin a little grey round the edges. And no my mum aint quite heavy enough;) Pulling 5.5Gs - Instructor gets a little carried away cos he's excited you pulled sumthin off and as such rewards your efforts by makin u black out but not quite pass out..tunnel vision is wierd. Laughin all the way thru it. I guess a few thousand hours in the pit helps ya out a bit.

Also imagine comin back from a sortie and tellin ya fly boys on rest up dat u dropped 30 jdams form ur frontline attack aircraft. It would sure put those bomber boys back in their seat

Yeah I was also thinkin a hole in the top would be better but i wanted to make it more interesting so inverted sounded like fun unless of course it makes you sick..personally spins make me chuck but whadeva rocks ya boat. Really though I do see it as feasible in this day n age.

You fly inverted under the mother plane which sends out a few prong like things from the massive hole in its belly which secure your plane so it wont move. once this is done all it does is drop the weapons into place and then drop you away..you may aswell add a refueling port to the underside of the jet so you can get some gas whilst ur at it..and your all juiced up and ready to go.