Rhen

You're unlucky enough to be living in a battlefield. Your country's troops shoot down an enemy aircraft. Should you: a) Go take a look and scavenge as much stuff off it as possible. b) Find the remains of the pilot and drag him/her through the streets. c) Call your armed forces so they can crawl over the wreck, and of course accompany them. d) All the above. e) None of the above. If you picked anything in categories a-d, then don't be surprised if you're suddenly playing a harp on a cloud, because air forces DO bomb what's left of aircraft so the technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands. The adult supervision in Afghanistan (whether they're German/NATO/US is immaterial) thought that the fuel trucks might be used as big bombs driven into, at best, a NATO compound, and at worst, into a western-friendly town and detonated. This decision had a chain. That chain ended with the pilots on the aircraft that dropped the bomb. The adult supervision approved it, the pilots executed. There's no way that the pilots can discern Taliban from Afghan civilians, as AFAIK, implanted IFF has yet to be perfected, or desired. It's sad when civilians die. There will always be collateral damage in a war. We hope to minimize needless death, but nevertheless, it will still happen. Few other military organizations actually try to minimize civilian casualties. NATO, fortunately, is one of those organizations.

With all due respect to Mr. Sprey and Col Dilger, they should've thought out of their 1960-70s box they're thinking within. Their logic is quite uncoordinated. First they extol the virtues of air-to-air fighter aircraft to protect bombers (WW2). Then they want to kill the F-22 because there's no need for its use in the current conflicts. They don't even mention the fact that being able to prevent the enemy from flying over the battlefield allows your troops to operate without the necessity of expending resources to protect yourself from an air threat. They also get upset with all the money spent on the SAC nuclear detterent/manned bomber programs, which left the TAF with little in the way of true fighter aircraft and the gravitas to change the focus from waves of ingressing bombers without/with minimal fighter protection. You must remember that missile technology on both sides was minimal, especially putting nuclear bombs on missiles and launching them with accuracy against hardened targets. Long-ranged bombers were the logical way to go; and going 5,000nm to bomb a target isn't a job for a small fighter. So, that's where the money went. Then we get to the Korean Conflight. They argue, and rightly so, that close air support was lacking because of the emphasis on the intercontinental bomber fleet. They also argue that there was little in the way of FAC. That's also true. What they fail to mention, in only passing, is that allied efforts rely on air superiority established over the battlefield before these small ground attack and FAC aircraft can hope to survive and complete their mission. Then we get to the Vietnam Conflict. They mention that the thud, and super sabre were marginally equipped aircraft for their taskings in this conflict. How true. They were quite vulnerable to the more maneuverable and gun equipped MiGs and the fledgeling IADS systems. If only we were smart enough to develop highly maneuverable aircraft that can use energy well. Well, thankfully Mr. Sprey, along with Boyd did just that. The F-15, F-16 were instrumental in keeping air superiority in all conflicts after Vietnam. This is the key. I'll restate the key. NO GROUND FORCES HAVE BEEN LOST TO AIR ATTACK SINCE THE KOREAN WAR BECAUSE OF AIR SUPERIORITY. Now that record may be under threat. Then these gentlemen fail to recognize the single reason why the Gulf Wars and Allied Force were so successful. Despite a well-coordinated IADS, we were able to hit strategic and tactical targets, dismantling their C3I, as well as their air defenses, and maintain air superiority. They may not think this is much, but it allowed ground forces to advance without harassment from the enemy's air forces. This is key to advancing ground forces. Ground forces can then act with impunity and call in airstrikes without worrying about those precious A-10s getting shot down by the enemy's superior fighter aircraft. In an environment where we have not established air superiority, the life expectancy of an A-10 is less than 30min (give or take a lot of minutes depending on the area of operations). Does that surprise you? Without establishing air superiority, you can't operate your ground forces effectively (without suffering massive losses), which are necessary to hold vital tactical and strategic objectives, or your CAS. How can you worry about hitting those bad guys 200ft from friendlies in your hog, when you're worried about being jumped by a fishbed or fulcrum? What's worse is what they prescribe as the answer. Kill the F-22 and F-35 and do the following: * A new close support aircraft smaller, more survivable, and more lethal than the A-10, one that is affordable in vastly larger numbers. (The Air Force plans to use small numbers of the unmaneuverable, highly vulnerable and ineffective F-35, at $150 million each, for this mission.) Well that would be a UAV, now wouldn't it. Make more reapers. Yeah, that's the ticket.... But remember the Georgian UAV downed by Russia? They're all easy kills when there's no air superiority. They can't operate without air superiority. * A forward controller spotter plane dramatically more survivable, longer-loitering and far lower cost in than a helicopter, able to land next to the tents of the supported troops. (The Air Force suffers from the delusion that close support can be called in using drones, satellites, and other “high tech” sensors, contrary to the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan.) Global hawk aircraft are able to loiter far longer than any "spotter plane" developed to do what these two chucklecraniums think is needed. The army already have small UAVs that can be hand-launched as well as catapult launched that fill niche areas not able to be filled by the Global Hawk. Let's just build more recce UAVs. Oh, btw, you've established air superiority over the battlefield, right? Otherwise, we've got a bunch of smoking holes where these so-called "spotter planes" were. * A small, affordable dirt strip airlifter to meet the real emergency needs of beleaguered battalions in the boonies. (The Air Force always short-changes this in-the-mud prop mission in favor of large jet transports.) Yeah, we got that in the C-130 and C-27. But you must remember, the USAF builds large jet transports because the ARMY tasks the USAF to provide airlift for those pesky & heavy Abrams, Bradley, and SAM batteries (Patriot, etc.) and other heavy armor. You can't have it both ways. You need the ability to airlift large quantities and weights of troops, armor, artillery, vehicles, helicopters, etc. This can only be done by a large jet transport. Oh, yeah. Got air superiority? Or are you going to put slammers on those C-27s? * A super-maneuverable new air-to-air dogfighter with all–passive electronics, far smaller with far higher maneuvering performance than the best of the F-16s and thus able to outfight the F-22 or any other advanced fighter in the world. (Emitting no radio/radar signals whatsoever, this new fighter will obsolete the F-22’s electronics, defeat any enemy fighter’s passive warning/identification-friend-or-foe system, and render useless the enemy’s radar-homing missiles which rely on seeking our fighter radars.) Oh, this is rich. They must've forgot to add the heavily armored and stealty tanker aircraft that will have to accompany them everywhere to give them enough fuel to actually fly somewhere to do something to someone. How will a fighter smaller than an F-16 be able to get anywhere to do anything without carrying the gas they need to get anywhere. You've got to build a whole lot of these stealthy tanker aircraft if you're going to build massive numbers of these small fighters. Passive everything. Hmm. Interesting. This would be a great time for the US to pull out all that alien technology from the Roswell UFO crash we've been sitting on for all these years. Well, then they need to put massive amounts of ELINT aircraft in the air to act as their sensors. These, let's call them "sensor aircraft" (Rivet Joint, JSTARS, E3) would need to be able to suck up the electrons from all the enemies aircraft and threats to provide to these small, highly maneuverable aircraft that they envision, a picture of the battlefield. Oh yeah, if they don't emit, then they better have a pretty damned good way of IFFing, otherwise there's gonna be a hell of a lot of fratricide if the sensor aircraft can't ID one of them. Finally, I didn't know there was a missile out there that homed in on fighter radars? I always thought they homed in on the reflected radar energy from the aircraft that launched them (SARH) or the missile's reflected radar energy (ARH). Hmm. Very interesting. Wrongheaded, but very interesting. Now, all these aircraft that Sprey and Dilger want require pilots, even the UAVs have human pilots. Pilot's aren't cheap. They require training, experience, and salaries. Training and flying put a massive price tag on all aircraft. Flying these aircraft means we need to maintain them. This requires technicians to fix the systems, which are another cost. Then there's the sensor aircraft and the tankers. We're getting into real money now. When you look at all the logistics of their plan, the cost may compare with the cost of phasing out vipers for the lightning2 and building 381 Raptors. The F-22 is all about establishing air superiority on a massive scale. It can dominate threats in the air as well as provide all-aspect stealth while dismantling the enemy IADS and C3I. It has great range and can get there quickly and efficently with minimal elint support. The F-35 can't provide this capability. The F-35 is designed to concentrate on it's air-to-ground mission while the F-22 protects it's ingress and, especially, it's egress. To remove this capability is to remove the ability of the US to meet current and future threats. The F-15 was able to meet the current threats for its time (1970s) and 40 years into its future. Now this 1970s aircraft is no longer able to fully meet these abilities. We need to be able to establish air superiority over the battlefield against current and future threats. I don't see Mr. Sprey and Dilger's prescription fitting the bill.

Keeping A2G weapons while engaging an insensate flight of fishbeds is one thing. Keeping those heavy & draggy bombs on the aircraft while engaging an opponent that knows what he's doing is totally different. BTW, one hornet shot the fish in the lips at 6.5nm with a heater (FOX2). The hornet driver then followed it with a Sparrow (FOX1)at 4.2nm. The heater made the kill, arriving to the target first, but the Sparrow also hit the lead bandit. The second hornet shot the trailer with a Sparrow (FOX1) at 2.1nm. Splash 2. It doesn't get any sportier than that. Stupid, really to keep A2G ordinance on the rails this close to the bandits, unless the bandits are completely unaware of your presense. If I know I'm going to have to do any BFM, whether it's against the bandits missile coming at me BVR, or if I've been careless enough to buy a merge, I'm gonna loose weight quick... in more ways than one! :fear:

Turn off SLI for LOMAC.

You're not thinking about the entire range of speeds here, are you? Turbofans are more powerful than turbojets at low speed since they move a large mass of air at low relative speed, versus a turbojet engine, which moves a small mass of air at much higher speeds than the turbofan. At lower mach numbers, the turbofan wins hands down. To get it to produce enough thrust at higher mach numbers, you stick an afterburning can on the back of it to get it to the mach3 range as it's top speed. To go beyond this, you must revert back to the old turbojet. Remember that the area of the inlet also acts as an aerodynamic drag on the aircraft for it's specific fuel consumption at higher mach numbers. There's no one here disputing that a CFM-56 produces a better SFC than a J57! :megalol: The idea being that a jet transport isn't designed for speeds much in excess of mach 0.8. The higher the mach, the lower the bypass ratio to remove parasite drag on the system. You'll not see a big bypass fan on a future fighter anytime soon. :megalol: Yes, we all know that trying to accelerate 200 tons of aircraft with a turbojet will just produce a LOT of noise & heat without moving the aircraft very efficiently down the runway. But, if you want that aircraft to be able to sustain M2 at 40,000 ft, we've got possibilities. The turbojet has a small frontal area compared to a high bypass turbofan. If you need the jet to go barely mach2, then there's a point where a lower bypass turbofan is the appropriate solution - but you'll have to put an afterburner on it, to accelerate something that heavy past mach. I think I already said that! :smilewink: Pure prop (fan) efficiency is measured as the amount of kinetic energy generated with respect to the surrounding air. The more kinetic energy in it's wake, the less efficient. With regard to overall efficiency we have the following (being VERY general in overall concept): Highest -> Lowest Prop, turboprop, turbofan, turbojet Fuel consumption per pound of thrust Prop, turboprop, turbofan, turbojet. Thrust at high mach numbers Turbojet, turbofan, turboprop, prop Thrust at low mach & altitude Prop, turboprop, turbofan, turbojet Thrust at high altitude turbojet, turbofan, turboprop, prop Still, overall efficiency of the turbojet is poor. It's also poor for a ramjet, but it will still produce better thrust at high altitude and mach numbers greater than 3 than a turbofan!

Again, it depends on the altitude and mach number. The higher the mach number, the better a turbojet might be. Granted, modern jet aircraft almost exclusively use turbofans, it's just that the amount of bypass is the central argument here. The greater the bypass ratio, the less efficient that engine will be at higher mach numbers. Airliners cruise at M0.8-0.9, fighters with lower bypass ratios and an afterburning section operate best at M0.95+. Heck, look at the Concorde. That aircraft had an afterburning turbojet to sustain M2. A turbofan would have increased drag because of it's higher cross section for a given output for that design of aircraft.

Actually, you're missing my point :smilewink:. My point is that modeling reality - as real as it can get - blah, blah, blah, is a double-edged sword. The enjoyment I get out of flying these "games" is the ability to go up, duke it out, and not have to worry about the "true realities" of an aerial combat engagement. I don't want to worry about flicking switches, or violating training rules (TRs), or hitting/killing someone. I'm more interested in the esoteric aspects of airborne tactical engagements. You guys, OTOH, are looking to make it closer to reality. Make the switch work, even if it just inflates the non-existent g-suit, or turns up the heat in the pit, or detects cracks in the rotor blades. Getting mired in the nitty-gritty of flight/systems, etc will either enhance your enjoyment of the game/sim/program - whatever, or beat it like a jockey on a slow horse. For example, in the F-15, do you really care if the RWR on light is steady or blinking, or what you have to do if you get either indication? Or would you rather go out and fly and fight and not consult with your MESL list (minimum essential systems list - minimum equipment required to fly a particular mission), run a checklist, abort the flight, consult the SOF, and have an ineffective sortie? There's a definite line between one man's/woman's enjoyment of this genre of simulation or complete lack of fun trying to find the fun in managing all the systems, regulations, rules, instructions... the list goes on and gets longer. What I'm saying is that you don't have to necessarily model everything about an aircraft, all the way to the old urine stains on the seat cushion, or the smell of jet fuel and sweat - to have fun, and learn/experience what it's like to be a combat pilot.

Turbojet engines have a higher range of operating mach numbers than a turbofan. A turbojet may be more inefficient, when it comes to burning JP-8 or Jet-A, but it can operate at higher altitudes and airspeed ranges than a turbofan. Turbofan engines are basically small turbojets that drive a big multibladed prop. The mass of the fan also can act as an airbrake at high altitudes limiting it's speed and altitude. The only thing that separates a turbofan from a turboprop is that the turbofan produces its thrust from the fan + core, while the turboprop only generates thrust from the prop (fan). Just my 0.02$ as a pilot, not a maintainer.

You guys must think that a military simulator is "sierra hotel" & can give you the absolute feel of flying the real thing. That's where you'd be wrong. There are many types of military simulators. Most are just great looking "pits" with all the switches, and that's about it. Most trainers are merely mockups that allow you to learn the flow of switchology so you'll master the various checklists and learn what to do, where to flick that switch, and when. There's the part task trainer - used to get good at flicking switches There's the weapons system trainer - basically how to flick switches in combat - also useful in practicing emergencies, aircraft handling, and tactics. There's the full-motion trainer - most are becoming a sim on a stick, that allow you to feel some semblance of G and a vestibular sense of flight. However, most of these sims don't really model a high-fidelity world. For example, there's no jetwash when you fly behind another aircraft. There's no bow wave interaction between aircraft in formation. No engine "thump" when someone in front of you hits the afterburner, no real meterological phenomena, with the exception of turbulence, some clouds - but mostly "ceilings" - broken, overcast, obscured cloud layers. All stuff to practice instrument flying. No birds to hit, except a fake wingman/vehicle that encroaches upon the runway to make you go around, or hits you/you hit so you can practice a controllability check. There's no damage modeling, with the exception of the systems in your aircraft malfunctioning. You take a missile, you're dead like MSFS. We have the real thing to practice in, when it comes to "high fidelity." You guys, OTOH, don't. When a sim models wake turbulence effects as well as systems, weapons, flight models, etc. then a sim will be a full-fledged model of what it's like to be a fighter pilot. But will you really want to fly in a sim that requires you to learn all the systems, how to deal with the malfunctions, how to deal with meteorological phenomena, how to fly appropriately in a tactical situation, how to deal with ATC without getting yourself, your flight, or others violated (no, it's not what you're thinking - it's a pilot thing :smilewink: ). Flying at the level of a military aviator - in a so-called "high-fidelity" environment - takes time and effort that most people aren't willing to invest. Do you really want to brief for an hour before you go fly? Spend hours studying technical orders, regulations/instructions, SOPs, intel reports, scholarly works from weapons school instructors, you get the idea. Maybe you do.

StarForce says... http://www.star-force.com/support/users/windows7/ So now, it's up to ED, I guess.... :helpsmilie:

Dude, I know you can be spring loaded towards the "YOU'RE WRONG!" direction, but if you would just do me the courtesy of reading past the first sentence of my first post, you'll see that I addressed everything in your post above. :smartass:

So, it runs BS. Doesn't prove a thing since DCS is a newer stand-alone program that probably uses a version of SF that's greater than 3.07, which is what is in 1.12b, IIRC.

Yeah, sadly I can confirm that the Starforce drivers included with LOFC & Patch 1.12b will not recognize Windows 7 Beta1 as a configurable OS. I've read somewhere that any version of Starforce before 3.5 won't work. I've tried using sfdrvup.exe (Starforce driver update utility) after removing the old starforce drivers with sfdrvrem.exe utility, but without any success using any of these methods. I've also read that copying and pasting the entire folder from a previous install on Vista worked for some games, but I don't see the point. Perhaps you might try that. Rerunning the 1.02 patch basically downgrades your LOMAC from 1.12 or 1.1 back to 1.02 if you've applied Flaming Cliffs or the 1.12 patch. Since 1.02 has no Starforce protection, you can run LOMAC (which is why this works). This means that you won't be able to connect to anyone who's on a 1.1 or 1.12 server. So, the ball's in Star Force and ED's court, for the time being. Whether they want to do anything about it (rapidly, slowly, or not at all) remains to be seen. Hope you have a dual-boot! :doh:

It's all relative Keeping in mind de Broglie's wave-particle duality of quantized matter, as well as Schrödinger's wave equations. Then, realizing some variability as to the quantum state of missiles by application of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty we can see that the desired effect of missiles traveling through the launching body is quite possible. Since the wave state of the Flanker at time of missile release and rocket motor firing causes the wave equation of the Flanker to differ from the higher total energy state of the missile, thus allowing a high velocity particle (the missile) to travel through the slower velocity particle (the Flanker). Here, we see the slow speed particle, expelling high energy particles: Next, we see the slow speed particle offering little or no resistance to the high energy particle: The next two views show the high energy particle emerging through the low energy particle. This is highly conclusive proof that the quantum mechanical effects of tunneling are indeed preserved within the physics of LOFC. I'm sure they did this to prevent stupid gamers :smilewink: from flying through their own missiles at launch by turning off collision detection at close range, but nevertheless, adds to the "game"-ness of Lockon. :(

So, paraphrasing your words... Do you understand how ridiculous that statement, along with yours is? Military pilots are checked out in emergency procedures (EPs) yearly. We take EP exams, and have to perform all critical action procedures (CAPs) in the simulator. We even fly with an IP in the back of the family model and do EPs in the aircraft. Amongst the EPs we perform is a single-engine approach and landing. We're proficient in these maneuvers BEFORE we're allowed to solo the jet. Miramar NAS has been around since the 1940's and, ironically enough, there's a school named after a navy pilot who stayed with his aircraft to avoid hitting a school. But you've got to remember that in those days, aircraft were flown with physical control over the flight surfaces. In the hornet, if you've got no engines, don't have windmilling RPM sufficient to generate hydraulic power, or rapidly deplete what's left in the accumulators, you have very little - if any control of the aircraft. As IvanK said, there's no way in hell a bug with one fully operational engine is underpowered at sea level on a southern California December day. You don't just eject from the aircraft because it lost an engine. If that were true, then why the hell put 2 engines in a jet? So we can scratch our balls before we decide to punch out? The pilot tried to recover his aircraft, single-engine. The aircraft lost thrust while on approach. That leaves few options, especially if the aircraft is beyond control. If we closed down every airport - and I do mean AIRPORT not USAF/USN/USMC base - whose flight paths take them over populated areas, then so long every major airport you've ever flown into.

Rate indeed does kill, and speed provides that, but there's many different speeds and their consequences to remember. But first, here's the things that matter in air combat. Air combat really breaks down into very simple concepts: 1) The guy with the SA usually wins. 2) The guy who can run his OODA loop faster usually wins, even if his decision isn't completely sound. 3) The guy who can act to maneuver his jet to put the bandit into his weapons envelope while keeping out of the bandits weapons envelope usually wins. Overall concept: NO GUTS, NO GLORY - you've got to show some aggressiveness in the arena of air combat, without this, you're not a fighter pilot. Aggressiveness being the intrinsic desire to succeed by bringing to bear, the skill, training, knowledge, and desire to win in aerial combat. Up to this point, many will construe the discussion as a debate over what's the best kind of BFM machine - one with excess thrust and a high turn rate at high speed, compared to the opponent - or the opponent in an aircraft with post-stall maneuverability or moddest thrust to weight but lower wing loading, giving a higher turn rate at slower relative speed (smaller turn radii). While this discussion is very fascinating, to most virtual fighter pilots, in reality, it's like asking a Bug or Eagle driver who's got the better aircraft. You learn to fight to the strengths of the aircraft you fly, and capitalize on the weaknesses of the other guy's aircraft. But really, it's all about the above three concepts. Regardless of whether this a BVR or WVR engagement, the concepts above apply. If you don't know you're fighting someone, you're gonna die. If you have to wait to visually ID the bandit, or if you've missed your sort, or if you've decided to buy a merge, then all bets are off. Anything can happen at the merge, but you use your aggressivenss and play to the strengths of your aircraft to win - as always - regardless of BFM fight or BVR. If you can effectively observe what's going on, orient yourself, decide upon a course of action, and rapidly execute - faster than the other guy - then you can react to what's developing and correct poor decisions before they become fatal. Finally, it's about rapidly maneuvering your jet into a position that maximizes it's capability to bring weapons to bear at the greatest distance possible, while minimizing the bandit's ability to get into WEZ. If you're going up against a guy with a knife, bring a gun. Don't let him get close enough to you to use his weapons, do something with his maneuverability, maintain his SA, or do something unexpected. That should sound like an Eagle driver (OBVIOUSLY!:smilewink:), not a Lawn Dart, Bug, or Fulcrum pilot trying to invite you into a phone booth (do those exist anymore?) for a knife fight. Let's talk BFM. First you must decide whether to go to the merge in the first place. Who's got the advantage in energy, geometry, weapons, etc. What are the threats around the container you're gonna fight in? Are there SAMs close, are there other bandits within Factor Bandit Range, what's an acceptable merge ratio (how many bandits will you engage with your formation), what's the experience/skill level of your flight? Remember many vs many (4v4 or greater) is a recepie for chaos - SA degrades and other factors become necessary to win. Is there an acceptable level of risk for buying this merge, or will I just get anchored here and become unable to accomplish my mission (fighter sweep, escort, CAP, air sovereignty). Once those decisions are made and you're going to the show, then you've got to know something about the opponent's abilities (pilot, aircraft, weapons, etc.). You do this by putting in long hours in the vault, studying your mission, your opponents, and their weapons/aircraft capabilities. BFM is about problems and solutions: The problems: 1) Range - you need to get into guns/heater position 2) Closure - how quickly is your range changing 3) Angles - aligning fuselages to finally be able to pull lead to shoot The solutions: 1) Speed or Velocity - the appropriate speed to get the best rate at the best time 2) Pursuit - Lag/Pure/Lead pursuit to control range & closure and solve angles problems 3) G - The G I have available determines how quickly I can rate my nose Back to our discussion on speed/velocity and aerodynamics; you must know the difference between sustained/instantaneous turn rates and what specifc excess power advantage you have over your opponent. Instantaneous turn rates are always higher than sustained turn rates, but will result in bleeding energy like a stuck pig, so can only be maintained for a short period of time until you turn into a peeled grape (slow speed with no control authority and thusly a floating/falling target - unless you have post-stall maneuver capability). Instantaneous turn rates can be achieved at both high and low speeds. High speed instantaneous turn rates depend upon the structural capability of the aircraft or G-limiter, and the lift it can develop at any given speed. The differences here between modern fighters is negligable, since most aircraft are usually rated to 9G. However, this is problematic in LOMAC since you'll usually GLOC here if using "Realistic G" while defending against a bandit/missile/or trying to square off the corner to get into a controlling position behind the bandit (the bandit's elbow, but that's another discussion). Your rate is large here, you're maintaining this rate longer at a higher entry speed (relative to low speed instantaneous turn rate), but your turn circle (turn radius) is larger than if you did this at a slower speed. This is the speed you want to have to perform an orthogonal roll/last ditch missile defense, or to square off that corner to get on a bandit's 6, because it gives you a better shot at having some speed after the maneuver - to continue maneuvering. Slow speed instantaneous turn rates are more interesting in that here's where major differences lie. This turn rate depends simply upon wing loading - the lower the wing loading (either through large wing surface area or combo with wing plus body lift), the higher your instantaneous turn rate at a slower speed. You must also remember that here's where the small turn circle (smallest turn radius) are made for a given turn rate. In other words, you've got a guy that can rate his nose rapidly and make an itty bitty little circle doing it. This becomes very important later in the discussion. The drawback is that you're not far from being too slow to maneuver if you have that stick full aft and the throttles full forward, and are getting all the aircraft can give. Keep this in mind: if you've been flying around for a while with your stick full aft and your throttle in MAX, enjoying the bumpy ride (aerodynamic buffet), and are looking out the top of your canopy across the circle at your bandit, then you've been screwing up. Both low/high speed instantaneous turn rates are where the angles fighter lives. They will try to sucker you into a low (where their engines perform better) and slow (where they can out rate and make little turn circles) fight. Now let's look at the other side of the equation. The guy with a high thrust/weight ratio or a relatively higher wing loading will depend upon sustained turn rate. Low wing loading helps here and I'm not saying that you can't have low wing loading and have a nice sustained rate of turn at high/low speed. However, up at altitude, the advantage goes to the Eagle vs Fulcrum/Flanker with respect to thrust/weight ratio - at combat weight. In the Eagle, the faster you are, the faster you go faster - or the higher your starting airspeed, the faster you can accelerate, since you're cramming lots of air into the inlet that the engine translates into thrust. Now with this specific excess thrust, use of the vertical is more important. Here's where the energy fighter comes in. These guys will try to keep the fight high (where they perform better) and fast (where they have the acceleration and turn advantage), and make the kill before you knew what hit you. There's an old addage - "You meet a better class of people in the vertical" which holds true for my community. Instead of getting pulled into a turning fight, our jet's capability make it possible to pull into the vertical, pirouette, and come down into or across the bandit's plane of motion, to set up for a snap (shot) or enter the bandit's elbow. Remember above when we talked about the itty bitty little turn circle? Well, here's a pearl for you. If you've found yourself inside a bandit's turn circle, regardless of whether you're offensive or defensive, you are going to be - for a time - bulletproof, as long as you're out of a WEZ. What I'm saying is that it's impossible for a bandit to turn inside his own turn circle. Now here's where the advantage of a tiny turn circle comes in. It's very difficult to turn inside a bandit's turn circle if he's an angles fighter with superior (lower) wing loading. You don't get into a turning fight with an A-10 (you kill the SLUFF before the merge :megalol:), you use the vertical and snap him. A good air superiority aircraft would have the following ingredients - if I was designing it: 1) Exceptional SA through data link and a LPI AESA radar, along with best electronic warfare suite money can buy (ECM/ECCM), countermeasures 2) Large supply of weapons that can reach out and touch you at large ranges that give very little/no warning, HOB/LOAL + helmet mounted targeting 3) Supercruise 4) Large combat radius 5) Small size (visual, electronic, infrared) 6) High T/W ratio - large specific excess power 7) Low wing loading 8 ) Thrust vectoring, or post-stall maneuvering capability - alway a good thing to be able to change directions quickly or throw a WEZ over the bandit quickly 9) Twin engine 10) Single pilot It's not really who's aircraft is better. The real question is whether the person at the controls can fly and fight well with what he/she is given, versus an adversary flying another aircraft of dissimilar capability.

You're absolutely correct. High alpha/AOA flight is a wonderful thing - up to a point. For example, I can get 40+ units of AOA out of the Eagle IRL (N/A LOMAC). However, what I'm doing at that point can be described aptly - since it's fall (season) - is falling out of the sky like a leaf. The stick's full aft the AOA might be 40-45 units, and the jet's going down fast (VVI's pegged at 6,000fpm DOWN) even though the nose is about level and the wings are rocking like a falling leaf. My turn rate at this point can be described as non-existant. I can stir the stick around and even kick the rudders around, but nothing really happens. Welcome to the peeled grape club, because if you're fighting in this regime in a conventional jet (non-thrust vectoring) you're not really fighting, you're a walking - er - flying target, ready to be turned into a cloud of hair, teeth & eyeballs, by the guy that keeps his rate up. If you have post stall maneuvering capability, you can still rate the nose, but not nearly as well as if you kept your speed at corner. Remember the #1 rule of BFM - KILL THE BANDIT QUICKLY. #2 is RATE KILLS. He who rates his nose faster than his opponent will win faster - all things being equal (pilot skill). As said previously, mature BFM will degenerate into a low, slow fight. Your best course of action is to keep your speed as high as possible (corner) to keep your rate, and of course, use out of plane (of the bandit's plane of motion) maneuvering to fly to the entry point of his turn circle - 2-3,000 ft behind the bandit. If I were a Raptor pilot, with the ability to sustain 28 DPS, then I'd stay there as long as possible. I'm a fool if I decide that 28 isn't enough. Then I begin to piss speed away, rate falls, & then if I keep this up I end up going from being a Raptor, to a Viper, then an Eagle, then a tanker (in turn rate)-with this great high alpha/AOA regime pre-stall where the aircraft won't rate. The only option at this point is to utilize vectored thrust. I can rotate about the tip of the aircraft instead of the CL (center of lift), so I get my rate back (the good news). But the bad news is 3-fold: First I'm hanging there in the air like a grape ready for the pickin' - because i have that much excess thrust so I don't fall out of the sky. Secondly, my rate, depending upon my rotational axis and gravity, but probably won't be 28DPS. Finally, I telegraph my state to the bandit because he sees my ass-end drop and my nose point obliquely upward. So that target arm in his Eagle can use the vertical while I rotate in the horizontal without getting my nose on him and I get a death dot plastered to my noggin.:doh: It's almost like fighting an F-14. You can see the turkey's energy level by his variable geometry wings. Wings swept back, he's moving at the speed of heat. Wing's moving forward, starting to slow a bit. Fully extended straight out - Turkey's done! Dinner time! Come get me! Another good rule for BFM is to always fly a 1v1 like it's a 1v2, because it just might be. No real airforce launches single ship to go fight. The smallest fighting unit is a 2-ship. So if you're engaged with a guy that's trying to keep you fighting, it may be because he's trying to keep you interested while his wingman pops you like a tick. What does flying a 1v1 like a 1v2 look like? Simple, remember BFM rule #1? Make the kill quickly & efficiently and come away from the engagement as close to corner speed as you can. Does this mean that you can stay at corner all day long? Nope. You sacrifice airspeed to enter a weapons parameter to QUICKLY KILL THE BANDIT. If I can blow my smash away by rating my nose onto the bandit, & then drill his brains out, sts, I'm gonna do it. I might end up at 250KCAS after that maneuver, but I'm now short 1 bandit. This works even better when you have a jet that can recover it's speed rapidly after squaring off the corner to get into weapons parameters. If your jet's a pig, you might not want to chance it. Another thing to remember is to maximize your merge geometery to deny a schlem, and use your countermeasures to help. If my ECM makes it impossible for him to lock me up/see me with his radar & we get to the merge, well he's probably already dead anyway, because my radar and ECCM are usually better, but if we get to the merge and I can maximize my geometery against a medium aspect bandit, I can HOB him or roll into his 6 and Fox him :thumbup:. Barring that I can get into his elbow and gun him. Rate will get me there. It's good to be able to control the aircraft post stall. That's what thrust vectoring is for. But it helps if your available thrust can rapidly accelerate you back to flying speed - oh yeah, and if you're electronically invisible to the merge, that sure helps too.:D

Nice to see ED rewarding someone who is knowledeable, professional, & level-headed to the status of forum moderator. Good luck reigning in the rabble - like me! PS: please feel free to move this post to the "Chit-Chat" forum. ;)

Grüß Gott,danke für Ihren Militärdienst. Entschuldigen Sie mich bitte, aber mein Deutsch ist schrecklich! :doh: Then you're knowledge of airborne fire control radars is inadequate to this discussion. :smartass: Modern fighter targeting radars as well as SAM radars are pulse dopper variety & not continuous wave, which are more easily vulnerable to ECM. All that's required to target a semi-active radar homing missile is HPRF. Active radar missiles also use HPRF for terminal guidance to their target, once it's acquired. I didn't forget this, as it's blatantly obvious. You must not know that this is irrelevant to FCRs of modern aircraft and SAM systems. The fact that the blades are in motion cause enough of a radar return that we usually get a velocity readout on the blades, which settles down as the target is sorted. We know the target is a helo when the velocity doesn't match it's groundspeed - initially. So, with your background, if it's recent, I would've thought you'd be more familiar with modern airborne and SAM radars. Perhaps you were in the navy during WW2? :doh: Sitting stationary on the ground is, in general, a good way not to be detected by a modern pulse doppler equipped fighter. However, it's not so good while you're trying to beat the air into submission with your rotor blades, regardless of whether you're stationary - on the ground or hovering. Once we notice you, the only way we will lose you is if you terrain mask, or land and spin down the rotors. I don't think you're comprehending what you read. Either way, it was Bakke, Bennett's WSO who picked up the Hinds at 50NM as they were moving. The Hinds were moving, stopping to drop troops off, then moving again, all the while lock was maintained. As they got within weapons employment distance, they switched command of the radar from the WSO to the pilot - as mudhen crews are trained - and Bennett maintained lock as Bakke lazed the target. Bennett later says the following in the article YOU quote: "The radar would stay locked on them when they were on the ground because the moving rotor blades were picked up." Completely incorrect for a modern pulse-doppler equipped fighter. As I've said before, on my B-scope, I have a solid return - none of this "blurred" contact stuff you report. However, I also have a velocity readout on that stationary target that is initially high, then settles down. This is a clear indicator - at least to me & my training, that I've locked up a helicopter. You don't seem to realize that we've modernized our equipment since you apparently were in the navy.

If you think you won't be picked up by a fighter while hovering, then you'd be wrong, actually. Helos show up as a target that is stationary on the B-scope, but with an airspeed readout, as long as the blades are turning. So, sorry. You're not invisible to fighter FCR unless you're on the ground AND your blades aren't turning at any significant speed. The same is true for most modern SAM systems as well.

:huh: :doh: Great work on the Eagle, Boom Boom. Hope it becomes more popular than Walmis' model, which I enjoy very much. Contrary to popular(?) :noexpression: belief, the tailhook on the F-15 (or for that matter, on any other USAF fighter-type aircraft) is NOT there because we just envy the hell out of . :lol: It is, however, there for the same purpose as used by our naval bretheren ("Naval aviators" or as we call them... Squids):megalol:. The tailhook is there to stop the aircraft in a short distance. The tailhook is there for emergencies where the aircraft is incapable of stopping in the normal fashion - a normal landing, aerobraking, and then using wheel brakes once slowed below 120Kts. That nose-up attitude you see when we land is not a wheelie we do just to look cool (although it does look cool, doesn't it?:megalol:), it's aerodynamic braking, which allows us to slow without using the wheel brakes. Using the wheel brakes at high speeds - 120 kts in the Eagle, might cause hot brakes, which can reach a significant temperature - sometimes up to 30 min after landing. This can cause the tires to explode, which does not make the crew chief very happy with the pilot.:smartass: So, we need alternate ways of stopping an aircraft weighing over 20 tons, with puny brakes and small tires, in case of brake failure or high speed landing. Enter the tailhook. It's used to catch the cable you see at the approach/departure end of military runways. These are usually BAK-9/12/13/14 type cables you see 1,500 ft down the approach end of the runway, which is raised using rubber donuts to a height sufficient for the tailhook to engage the system. The aircraft is then brought to a stop by the kinetic energy being absorbed by the system to stop the aircraft in a short distance. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_13/runway.pdf So, to recap, we haven't stopped using the tailhook on USAF aircraft, and it's not some US Navy master plan to steal USAF aircraft and use them on carriers.:megalol:

No, "Dozer" (Shower) was at 37,000ft when he picked up a contact 35NM out, taking off from Batijinica. Interestingly enough, although Dozer was part of a 4-ship, he set up a counterrotating CAP so that an element was always pointing towards the threat axis. this meant that when he left the CAP to prosecute, he was in an element (2-ship). Also, his prime (the main radio) was jamming itself, so his radio calls were garbled. Anyway, the contact was going less than 200Kts and was at 1,500ft. Doser locks the bandit up at DR at which time the bandit's going 400kts and is at about 10,000ft. The bandit's coming towards Dozer's element, he EIDs hostile and makes a radio call "Hostile, hostile, Fox3," which nobody heard. This was at 14NM. Dozer watches the missile and it guides and when the slammer went active, he fires a sparrow. Shortly after this as Dozer is descending out of altitude, the MiG goes to the beam, for whatever reason, like the slammer exploding near him or the tracking lock. So, the bandit's maneuvering and the sparrow misses. Now Dozer's looking down at the bandit and he's inside 6NM when he fires a slammer. They've got about 10,000ft of altitude separation, the slammer comes off the rail and goes straight down after the bandit. The bandit comes out of the beam and breaks into Dozer. They're looking at each other beak-to-beak, when the slammer hits the MiG. Dozer watches the fireball doesnt see the pilot eject, but heard later that the MiG pilot survived, for which he's said he's glad. I must emphasize this: Dozer's sentiment about shooting down the aircraft & not the Man/Woman flying the jet is shared by the vast majority of us in the fighter pilot community. We want to shoot the mount, not the rider. We know, just like other REAL Fighter Pilots, that there's wives/husbands and kids involved when we do battle. Our aim is not to kill, but to best the driver and kill the mount. It may sound naiive but that's what many of us feel. Another thing: All you people who are idiotic enough to think that we're not experiencing some amount of fear when we enter battle, even with a foe who's not equipped with the best equipment, are kidding yourselves. How about you enter a large dark room with a Glock and flashlight & go up against someone with a single-shot .22. Tell me you won't experience some level of excitement and trepidation. So, to recap: 2v1 engagement, but more like a 1v1 with radio issues going on. Slammer Pk = 50% from this engagement - 2 fired, 1 miss, 1 hit. Sparrow Pk = 0% - 1 fired, 1 miss I've been watching this debate for a while, and it just confirms things. Sad really.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=473221&postcount=5

175.12 without that problem-for Vista64 only.

Yes, but does it have ejectable pleather seats, high-precision analog instruments, telescoping ladder, the Plane of the Year - all for $12.99mil?