lunaticfringe

Hank Kleeman, Larry Muczynski, Mark Fox, and Nick Mongilio must be hard core simmers, then.

When someone says it was a communications issue, or a briefing issue, or some other mitigating factor, it is undermined by the fact that nobody else in the wing shot anybody. That nobody else in any fleet shot somebody by the same terms. Failure doesn't immediately dictate that the process is incorrect. And not every process can, or should, be conformed to fit with every individual mindset. I was reminded of this by a poster somewhere else claiming to have been on the accident board- stating that the concern was found in Dorsey having been reprimanded for being slow to act in a similar training situation, and that his mental state may have been degraded both by this, and the belief in a potential "rogue pilot". Doesn't matter. He wasn't given the directive to go *live* and shoot. He was simply told to shoot- meaning function based on the terms briefed.

This is not actually true. Ever wonder why aircraft get sent out to the ranges against clean Aggressors while carrying bags and CATMs? Because they are expected to learn how to work through the problem while dealing with operational restrictions. Bags and munitions are limited by the supply chain. We're used to seeing major run ups, massive stockpiling of manpower and material before conflict takes place; this is not an option when responding to a crisis. Losing rounds, drop tanks, and bombs to an unnecessary jettison in a situation a pilot can be trained to fight through and succeed puts undue stress and exerts limitations on the ability of a force to continue to remain a factor. Two aircraft drop tanks. A cycle later, that's two aircraft that need to top off more often, or can't CAP as far. Both of these factors degrade the capability of the overall effort, meaning that patrol are either closer to the boat or strip, fuel fractions must be computed for lessening loads, or you need two buddy tankers to go forward in a package rather than one. If you can learn to beat a clean bad guy bagged up (and you can), you can beat anyone, anytime.

Col. Lee's last assignment in the air 20 years ago was in E-3s. While he was doing instruction at the FWS in the 80s on Soviet tactics, anything he did in the cockpit prior to his controller position (and later wing command roles) is so atrophied in the way of a skillset to be invalid for the matter of debate. Stick a current FWS instructor of the type of your choice F-22, F-15, F-16, F-35 in that simulator, or from a squadron that just ran through Red Flag, and watch that AI burn.

1. AB thrust with the TF30s was 41,800, not 34,154. 2. It's not a question of simple maneuverability- there is no turn that the F110 powered Tomcat could generate that the earlier, Pratt and Shittney couldn't generate; it's not a matter of maneuverability, but sustained maneuvering. This means that the F-14A was required to prosecute an engagement in a different fashion than the upgraded variants- generally in a slower, more calculated fashion. Endgame, however- it would bat-turn in the same fashion as the B/D 3. When discussing the later migration of the F-14 into multi-role, this does not mitigate the earlier responsibilities of the aircraft to pure air to air. Subsequently, the falloff in responsibility- and therefore pilot versus pilot performance, was late in its lifespan, so this is a very difficult point to side one way or the other. 4. That said, it's also important to remember that the G limitation in the F-14 was *operational*, not systematic. If the wings had the energy, it would provide a pilot with whatever G he could withstand. The airframe was originally specified to 9G- as was the purpose of the original CL max wing sweep programming, with testing out to 12+G. That the Navy cut the charts off in an attempt to extend service life doesn't remark on the matter of actual capability within the jet- simply that you don't get to see the numbers. 5. Really funny item of note: one of the F-15 RTU manuals I have with a BFM DACT breakdown of types the students would potentially be exposed to during the course mentions the F-14, goes into detail about what it takes to beat it, and references the F110s in the D. But then gives the students the EM for the F-14A. :D

You're old enough to rock & roll- doesn't mean your short term memory still works. ;)

He had his career ruined because he was an imbecile. He was appropriately briefed, and comms were the same as always for *any* event- training or war. His career was saved because his daddy was an admiral. And he was *this* close to making admiral, when the system told him to go screw for his being an imbecile in the F-4 shootdown, coupled with his involvement with high-interest rate shopping for US servicemen- ie, a scam. Timothy Dorsey's career survived because of his old man. It ended because he was a low class moron.

Never knew Lucas was into solid fuels development.

Try it. https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/request/publicPreCreate Sub agency will be Navy Air Systems Command.

1. The AIM-7F functions in either CW or PD; all that is required is the selection of SP PD on the MSL OPTION selector. 2. The WCS, when Phoenix operates in NORM mode from the MSL OPTION selector instructs the missile to function for CW if the AWG-9 is in a Pulse STT mode, or as appropriate for Doppler otherwise. The radar is designed to perform FM modulation for the AIM-7F in either function mode- CW or PD. Do you legitimately think it wouldn't feed the AIM-54 that same data- especially when the missile works in the same modes, plus TWS? As to the document SinusoidDelta provided, it details next to nothing as to the contents of the data transmitted. Further, AIM-54 is specifically designated, and functions, as a semiactive *radar midcourse guided* weapon; it's listening to all sorts of data, not just the DL. And with regards to the loft profile, the Phoenix antenna has a 60 degree gimbal limit- radiated energy is going to get there.

Attached. Folks tend to think that because it is called "Freedom of Information" that getting ones hands on documents, even in this case a thesis, is at no charge. Not even close to being true. Generally speaking, one pays if the document requested hasn't been released prior, and doesn't qualify for a "public good" waiver; even identifying as an amateur historian doesn't always get qualified, based on the point that they expect you at some point to attempt to monetize the material. Which, because of the fees I've paid in the past, I tend to do just that. So at that point you're not getting a waiver, you're paying at quarter of an hour prices, plus copies (or digital media). The MDR process gets expensive because, rather than unclassified documents simply not issued prior, the material must be reviewed line by line whether or not all, part, or none of the document in question can be released to the general public.

I *hope*, but my expectations aren't high. If rejected, I could go for an SBU (sensitive but unclassified) review, but that gets into MDR (mandatory declassification review) money territory at $55/hr, and they can get almost punitive depending on who you're dealing with, and still wind up with a mostly blank document.

The fight for data continues...

Required to be turned on during the first selection of TWS, but yes.

Process and applicable notes on the Multi-Target Symbol (which is what you would highlight with the TDC and commit a long press on to initiate SORT). And that's not even the really fun stuff, like Expanded Azimuth (for 73 degrees of F-Pole)...

The APG-63 had RAM (Raid Assessment Mode) only for a few years. RAM function in the APG-63 and 70 were similar, but issues were had by the air to air types because of the nature of display shifting as presented; the zoom function of RAM causes the focus area to rotate in relation to azimuth position; while this seems fairly intuitive, repeated pattern shift from a B-scope view to the zoom at higher azimuth angles is going to mess with SA, rather than increase it. Subsequently, it was removed in favor of the already available SORT mode. SORT is an azimuth heading-stabilized mode where you would tag up the formation, and the radar then shifts into 30-degree, small bar spacing (anywhere from 3.4 up close, to 1 degree at range). Once stabilized, if you moved the heading of the airframe, the stabilized point would shift in the B-scope, giving a more natural presentation than an ambiguous rotation. Meanwhile, the pilot would shift around the stabilized target area with little "bumps" of the TDC to move apparent cell resolution around to break out multiple targets. While it sounds fiddly, in practice it works, especially with formation sort responsibilities. Everybody tags up the same base target, then bumps/elevation shifts into their respective place in the pattern. Voila- everybody's got their job done, and the engagement process can continue. Also helping is AIM-120's pitbull logic, which isn't as represented here...

If you want to get an understanding as to how the US plays this game, beyond the exploitation of hardware purchased from foreign nations or secured through defection, you may find this book interesting: https://www.amazon.com/Billion-Dollar-Spy-Espionage-Betrayal/dp/0345805976/ (Note: I was quite honored to be listed in the credits as an SME.)

Re: CW operation with embedded FM ranging. One can be quite certain that the same technique applied with the AIM-7 is used between the AWG-9 and AIM-54 as described in both STT and TWS; all that changes is the rate of update.

This is true. I was in the middle of authoring an aspect training module for the board simulation I work on and it was stuck in mind.

Short range engagement against a 6G maneuvering target drone. The missile doesn't care about radius because it's outside. But nah- it can't maneuver to compensate, yo.

Protip: that is the basis of 80+% of *all kills throughout the history of air combat*.

^This.^ AIM-4: 1956. K-5: 1957. Radar guided air to air weapons have been operational for sixty years- they've dominated half of that timeframe.

No, I think you forgot the nature of your equation and available G on the weapon. Do your little equation- it won't catch. That is to say, you're claiming an equation invalidates the capabilities of the AIM-120 and AIM-54, but we must go outside your proofing measure to see what the AIM-9 can do? You know what that means- your mathematical proof is invalid. Given the United States Air Force never utilized the AIM-54 Phoenix in any guise, that's not exactly a point you want to be making. You haven't read up on current history, have you? Desert Storm. Iraqi NFZ. Bosnia. Kosovo.

By your own math, the AIM-9M, being a Mach 2.7 missile, is incapable of hitting a target pulling 9G at .5 Mach, and that's ludicrous. You'd better check back in with your textbook.

I don't know about anybody else, but I know I sure love backing Kickstarter projects with administrators who immediately have to defend the morality of their business model. What really amuses me is Michiel's inability- in fact, outright obfuscation (see: the Vive argument), to uphold his product's own stated claim of "plug and play". Plug and play doesn't entail soldering, leads, and code. But it's apparently problematic to point this out- giving us the early appeal to morality. Now, if he wants to go through the process of soldering joint, constructing every board, authoring the necessary scripts, and building an installer- then he'll be in the realm of plug and play. Otherwise, it's a bag of parts with no support (well, let's be truthful- it'll be Ian and the rest of the forum forced to play technical support) and a PCB constructed by what is clearly a poor process. The argument is to let him "help people"- the problem is that he's not actually helping anybody other than himself.