lunaticfringe

That's funny. Tell me- do you have any knowledge on the matter of the USAF failing to extend E-3 flights to the east, thereby giving both a coverage blind spot to radar range along the Gulf, as well as a Link reception dead zone? And that Navy planners were required to facilitate full Link capability using a series of land-based repeaters, along with miles upon miles of hard cable run along the desert? If Link is so good, why wouldn't the USAF want to help the USN facilitate having access to it? Don't anybody tell him about the range of the AIM-120C-8/D.

Generally, people like to fixate on things other than the topic when they don't have information. You mean like this?

^this^ STR, ITR, and knowing where those values lay at weight and altitude is the fundamental basis of BFM. You cannot effectively define your plan, or even determine if it's working, if you are unable to fly effective profiles to the best of your aircraft's performance. You don't even have to know what the other guy's number is; all you have to do is see what your best is doing, and operate accordingly. And any G less than STR is, by its inherent nature, the reacquisition of energy.

INS isn't going to help an air to air gun solution, because the INS has no frame of reference *to the moving target*

Raw performance was more related to configuration than engine. Even on the deck, 50% gas and 2x2 or 2x4, TF30s would walk on F110s. Start hanging Phoenix on the gloves however (note the weights- they're not palletized), and the situation changes.

My statement is in relation to the OP question and the admitted work LN is doing here and now. APG-71 information has no bearing on the question asked, or current plans. This is what every thread becomes. Someone asks a question. People answer. Somebody comes along and throws a bunch of unrelated conjecture at the conversation. Clarification is made to keep the waters from being muddied. Definitions of words get discussed. Confusion is made in the minds of those not paying attention. And then three months to a year from now, somebody is going to adamantly say, "we'll I remember LN saying they were going to make a D model Tomcat and now I'm mad it's just a B!" Answer questions that are asked with topic pertinent responses. Answer in accordance to what a developer has stated they are doing, versus what they might do at some distant point in the future. It saves pissing matches, headaches, and time.

The retirement date was originally 2010. The issue wasn't simply one of delays to Sparrowhawk integration, but of two converging tables- a program that needed more time than expected, on a platform that was removed from service four years earlier than intended.

LTS was wired into A and B.

LN isn't making the D.

On the F-15, the limitation isn't the engine; it's the windscreen.

Doesn't need to be pure. Gimbal limits present lead opportunity- all it has to do is hear the reflection.

That's because it was just released through FOIA to me yesterday.

I stated previously that the Navy's terminology was precise regarding semi-active for a reason. The missile data link provides the location for the antenna to look for an echo. Everything else was encoded in the pulse. There's about 30 pages of redaction giving harder data on the AWG-9 and AIM-54 itself. I'm waiting to determine if an appeal is desired.

Re: Vladivostok: The first order need to flatten Vladivostok in a World War III scenario is dead easy: ten Yankees and ten Delta IIIs. The second is the Aleutian chain. Access denial is a simple matter when you are on a short resupply path. Stick a substantial amount of the remaining Soviet submarine force in that formation, and reinforcement in that region becomes borderline impossible; you simply cannot move enough material and fuel by air and land fast enough to sustain an extended defense of American forces based in Alaska. Looking at the surface warfare and naval aviation interactions between the US and USSR in the 80s, one could easily state that the biggest single driver of USN tactics and strategy on the matter was (at the time) RADM James Lyons. This is of special note, as based on his performance in slapping the Northern Fleet at command of the US 2nd, he was given the role of CINCPAC. What's even more of note is what he did with it in the fall of 1986: walking the combined forces of the CV61 and 70 CVBGs across the Pacific- totally undetected by the Soviet submarine fleet, RORSAT, and Tselina, and on September 16th, parked them in the middle of the Sea of Japan, and sent forward strike assets of CVW-2 and -15 in mock attack runs at every Pacific Fleet base in the province. The Soviet response was, shall we say, "substantial"; recent events with the sackings in the Baltic Fleet come to mind. The USN considered Vladivostok a primary target in the 1980s. It still does. Regarding assets current modern DCS subset, the only real challenge to realistically get them into the fight is the Draken (which we'll consider based on the recent nature of it's timeline) and the Mirage 2000, but even that is as close to Japan as Taiwan, and given the nature of treaty entanglements might just find its way in. There is plenty of reason to be interested in that area for development. Do I think it'll happen? Not yet. Would I enjoy it? Damned right.

Question- is there anyway to fully reset controller axis response in MMJoy? On MMJoy2 with an Arduino Pro Micro, wired up with hall senors, everything worked fine from the onset. Wonderful response, rock solid all around, calibrated right up perfectly. Used it for a while, and now the registered values aren't just spiking, they're off the charts. And it doesn't matter if I swap inputs arround- reconfigure anywhere on the board for internal axis- send the instructions to the board, and watch the numbers whirl. Any ideas?

"Please give me F-5 template!" "There are no F-5 templates available for release at this time." "Please give me F-5 template!" /facepalm

Particle board. Sanding won't do much good. Filling will be ridiculously time consuming. He could use adhesive edge molding, or if he owns a router, use T-molding like on an arcade cabinet, which would give the cleanest finish with the highest durability.

"Snort" Snodgrass, back in 2005-2006, attempted to leverage his Navy and governmental contacts and warbird industry backers to secure two. He was denied. There are rumblings that the Collings Foundation have also attempted. They've also been denied. When the aircraft were SARDIP'd, or transported for museum usage and demilled there, they had frame spars intentionally cut to eliminate any chance of flight capability. There are rumored to be a few out there that this process was not completed on, depending on the timing of release. However, because the remaining ten at AMARG did not go through demilitarization, the backbones should remain intact. However, right now the real challenge is US law. The situation with Iran must change prior to any chance of one or two being returned to flight status. And given information released publicly about the nuclear deal coming to light recently- signs aren't good this will take place anytime soon, unless they wholesale replace their fleet with Russian hardware. That said, note that a particular B-29 known as "Doc" took flight for the first time in 60 years on Sunday. So long as hardware is preserved effectively, there's always a chance.

You didn't actually call a pure linkage to hydraulically boosted control system "modern" in comparison to interpreted control surface commands in a FBW aircraft, did you? Oh, you did. Yeah, you might want to investigate flow separation at high AoA. Doesn't matter how "stable" the manual says it is- the natural effect of increasing AoA on wing-plane control surfaces (ie, ailerons) is degraded authority. Meanwhile, as flow is maintained out of that region, rudder authority is increased, and depending on the aircraft, roll axis instability can occur. Thus, you invoke pedal to initiate and control roll, with increasing input as AoA increases. As to comparing an F-16 to a MiG-21's control methodology, they have no basis from which to start. There is no input issued by the pilot- either through stick, or pedal, that is not interpreted across multiple channels and then directed to the control surfaces. And the Viper can use them all- including the rudder, to do what the system believes the pilot is looking for. Tap the stick to the side with enough AoA on the airframe, and it will indeed induce rudder, just like any other FBW aircraft, in the attempt to maximize instantaneous performance on an axis. The Fishbed has no such interpolation. Subsequently, stating that a pilot flying an FBW aircraft doesn't use the pedals isn't indicative of what a MiG-21 pilot must do- the Viper driver doesn't hit the pedals to roll because the airplane already knows it needs to use the rudder.

I hate it when it does that.

Not at all. I simply find your desperation to hold onto a position actual events have refuted, bending all the while, amusing to watch. Frankly, given prior history, I'm surprised you didn't say "look- I drew a hard line that isn't actually the case, and positioned things that do in fact happen in combat in a derogatory light unnecessarily based on a lack of reviewing pertinent information", because you seem to generally be reasonable, and we'd have moved on by now. Instead, you've attempted to use technical limitations, operational intentions and instruction, and incomparable events as a basis with which to support a line that evidence would show just doesn't want to be reinforced. Considering the relative track records of repudiating garbage on this forum with hard, certifiable evidence out of service publications and providing further documents for development purposes, if you really want to play the troll card, you'd likely be better off looking up the definition of "psychological projection". But that's perhaps just you- or maybe it's not. I trend towards giving people the benefit of the doubt given the lack of actual perceivable body language and inflection on the internet.

He states he saw them- not that he identified the type of said specks at 8 miles. By your definition, and using apparent USAF doctrine, being tagged by an opposing radar constitutes an emergency. I'll get right on picking through materials when you find me the F-15's MCM 3-1 instructions to drop tanks at any little buzz on the RWR and include it in your next reply (let's all just be internet tough guys), because I'm getting all sorts of good laughs from this conversation. :D Okay, and... totally a mistaken entry on the phone intended to carry on with the sentence on the carriage return line below. Which, I notice you don't want to mention, because it undermines the nature of what you think is important, what constitutes a threat based on training experience, and what is available on an airframe for options in an emergency with stores in place.

Wasn't merely lazy- it was wrong. Patently false. Kleeman identified his victim as a Flogger; Muczynski, who had the best view of both, and got a close up of his opponent, confirmed they were Fitters on guard after the fact. They were shot at, with the wingman F-14 having an AWG-9 failure at the merge and only one available Sidewinder. That's a substantially disadvantaged situation demanding an expedient end, and yet- the tanks remained on, because they were trained to deal with it. It's amusing to see you want to discuss relative position and apparent lack of maneuver from a HUD tape with a merge against MiG-21s, yet as we'll see in a moment, Eagles were dropping them in BVR for everything- including MiG-23s and Su-22s. It's actually rather kind of cute. There were only two actual turning engagements by F-15s over the course of Desert Storm- Underhill and Rodriguez against the MiG-29s, and Tollini and Pitts against the MiG-25. The only thing even close after those is a rundown of MiG-23s by Denney and Powell, Dropping bags in BVR isn't exactly a good look, when even the Weasels weren't ditching them consistently when engaged up close. So ultimately, your argument stands on the idea that USAF pilots tend to react to situations as emergencies that USN pilots take as yet another day in the office. Sounds about right. :D

That wasn't your contention. This was: Fast Eagle 102 and 107 carrying drops after the merge *is* a disadvantage. The Sunliner pair being bagged up and each carrying four 2000lb bombs *is* a disadvantage. They did this, knowingly, as a response to training that permitted them to do so. A declaration was made. That declaration was false. Attempting to reinforce it by trying to shoehorn in some nuance where you yourself left none is nothing more than trying to move the goalposts after the kick.