Basher54321

On the F-16 no - with FBW when the pilot moves the (joy)stick, a roll command is sent to the computer to do the work. You could apparently depart it if rolling with stick and then using manual rudder under some conditions. Typically rudder was used for rolling the older jets (at higher AoA values) where adverse Yaw was an issue (like the F-4).

No that was after Desert Storm - 27th Dec 92

Keith Rosenkranz stated it happened to one pilot twice in the space of a week (IIRC). The pilot dropped his bombs (assume CCRP mode) and then switched to an AA mode via the throttle - but both times he still had his thumb down on the pickle button so the AIM-9 let fly. This is very serious if you consider Fratricide!! 36 times in 13,000+ sorties - maybe - but I'm still not convinced about the F-16 and 36 fired. If I can find a reference that states what platform fired how many in gwaps I will try to find out more.

Overall figures might be correct from his source gwaps - although it covers Desert Shield as well. Be good to see the actual breakdown though you would think some must have been fired during A-A training (2500+ sorties) for pilot benefit.

For PK you want missiles actually fired ( attempts ) at another aircraft during actual engagements. Not aware F-16s attempted any AIM-9 shots at Iraqi (or other) aircraft. IIRC the accidental firings on the F-16 were due to the way the avionics were set up - and this was promptly changed. Have seen those figures before - have you pulled those from BVR Promise and Reality?

From the VPAF war records Claims by MiG-17/19 pilots = 73 Match US loss records = 22 Claims by MiG-21 pilots = 119 Match US loss records = 47

See no reference to F-5s in that post you replied to.

The US Marines flew a lot of sorties from land bases with their RF-4B and F-4B/J - but not everyone would realise that.

Recent photos and video from North Korea show variants of IL-28 Beagle, MiG-15, and MiG-17 still in service among others. [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUpUEJxO_PQ&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

The BLC seems to have been controversial between the vets when the J went to SEA. It had been tested in colder air - but there wasn't enough excess thrust to provide safe landing handling (which was the general point). Seems the J57-P-420 wasn't in the first Js and that seemed to improve things along with a reduction in bleed air. Interesting to see the SAC documents list drop tanks as part of the stores - I don't think I have ever seen a photo with them being carried.

Empty Weights: NAVAIR / SAC F-8C 16,483 lbs (1967) F-8D 17,541 lbs (1967) F-8E 17,836 lbs (1967) F-8J 19,815 lbs (1973) Less certain on the 21 - only have a Bis manual in English (A.Mladenov , MiG-21, 2014) (includes a PFM Russian manual as source) MiG-21F-13 10,602 lbs MiG-21PFM 11,843 lbs MiG-21MF 11,770 lbs (Y.Gordon , MiG-21, 2008 ) MiG-21F-13 10,738 lbs MiG-21PFM n/a MiG-21MF 11,790 lbs

The VPAF used these variants 66 to 72: Trainer: MiG-21U MiG-21US MiG-21UM Fighter: MiG-21F-13 from Jan 66 MiG-21PF (PFL / PFV) from April 66 MiG-21PFM MiG-21MF from 69? Have recently got a more complete F-8H manual that gives some more info on cruise droop:

Interesting - had to pull out the NATOPS to double check this. The LEFs had three manual positions that could be selected by the pilot with the incidence wing in the down position as above. So the first photos look like Cruise droop position (~6 degree down inner) , the last would be in the clean position (no droop), and there was also a spin droop position (~36 degree down inner).

The first Italian made F-35A transatlantic journey: http://www.sldinfo.com/NINJA-DISCUSSES-HIS-F-35-FLIGHT-ACROSS-THE-ATLANTIC-THE-RIGHT-STUFF-ITALIAN-STYLE/

There was a response from Lockheed on the report https://www.f35.com/news/detail/2015-dote-report-public-response-statement Although the DOT&E report is factually accurate, it does not fully address program efforts to resolve known technical challenges and schedule risks. It is the F-35 Joint Program Office’s responsibility to find developmental issues, resolve them and execute with the time and budget we have been given. Our government and industry team has a proven track record of overcoming technical challenges discovered during developmental and operational testing and fleet operations, and delivering on program commitments. A few recent examples of issues that are resolved include the F-35C tailhook, the F135 engine rub, and F-35B STOVL Auxiliary Air Inlet door. The F-35C has now “caught the wire” more than 200 times at sea, the engine rub fix is incorporated on the production line and delivered engines are being retrofitted, and the F‑35B has performed more than 1,000 vertical landings safely.

Ha yes seems back then the A-7D guys were up in arms :) I take offense at the statement that the Hog was lots better than the SLUF in the rigged flyoff. ""After the A-10 was selected by the Air Force, Congress directed the service to fly it against the A-7. The Warthog dominated the A-7 during the 1974 fly-off."" Reason Congress wanted the flyoff was that the Hog was also gonna replace the F-100 and A-7 for BAI and some interdiction work. The Double Ugly was gonna be phased out as the Eagle came online. Funny, but we were gonna have a big gap in the mudbeater world until the Viper arrived, and that plane was not a factor in the A-10 design or ops requirements. All we had was the A-7, and USAF had to kill it in order to get the Hog. See my AvWeek editor letter in fall of 1974 if you can find it. Only thing the Hog dominated was strafe effectiveness and its ability to get the nose around quickly for another run or a nape pass. Its bomb accuracy was a joke, and the thing did not even have a real HUD or decent nav system, much less a computer-assisted bombing system that the A-7 had since 1968!!!!!!. It was a WW2 plane with jet motors and a big cannon - a jet-powered A-1 that would have worked wonders in 'nam and be slaughtered over the Fulda Gap or the Sinai in 1973. My immediate boss was TDY for the flyoff and he came back and told us all that the thing was rigged and we were flying planes that would soon go to the Guard. Sure enough, our A-7's went to one Guard outfit after another and the 356th TFS became the first operational Hog squadron after handing their SLUF's off to a Guard unit. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=299954#p299954

I can go only go by your previous posts and I'm not suggesting you are off your rocker. (You might want to check Horners biog though) However it is very clear that your opinions and feelings do not include everything you need to be an authority on what the best CAS platform for the AF. Yes you want the best platform for the troops (I'm sure most do) but you need to consider that doing things a different way might be a lot better for the troops not just good enough.

The AF sees things differently because they see things you are not party to and have to consider other things (like how do we get to the troops past the line of S-400s), that is why like it or not they are best placed to decide on the best overall platform for the AF and the most effective to support the troops (it is not some conspiracy against the Army). If the Air Force dictated to the Army what Tanks or Guns to buy (In the same way Army troop think they know what is best for the AF) then you might have some cause for concern. If there are problems between the services then only better communication or working closer could help this. A lot of the effectiveness of the A-10 comes from the fact that certain communities like the A-10 community specialise in things like CAS, however when they move onto other platforms they should still be able to do the job just as effectively using different tactics, platforms and technology (Similar to the A-10C over the 1970s A-10A) - humans are terrible at dealing with change - but things move on.

Very recent article has just gone up on this very subject: This is important to point out because people seem to think that only A-10s can do CAS. This is patently false. While the A-10 may be damned good at CAS, it’s not the only aircraft capable of doing so. In fact, it accounts for only a small number of CAS sorties in theater today. https://fightersweep.com/3855/what-close-air-support-is-and-isnt-part-one/

This might be useful on the USN design (Author Biog at very end) https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiWmqi4sNzKAhVJbz4KHeE9AiMQFggvMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f-16.net%2Fforum%2Fdownload%2Ffile.php%3Fid%3D19105&usg=AFQjCNH2YFUIdUiDoJzNhF_NWe1f4Em5kA

AIM-9Ls were delivered to Acension Island and picked up by the fleet on the way to the Falklands - not sure on the date but can probably be worked out. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sea-Harrier-Over-The-Falklands/dp/0304355429

For sure - correct me if I am wrong but East Germany were not operational with those MiGs until around April 1988 according to Yefim. Block 40 was going to squads in 1989 and combat deployed in 1990 (the Last year of East Germany). AIM-120A was IOC in 1991 so afraid can only speculate whether the GDR would have been upgraded by then.

This was first posted on the Net around 2005/2006 and has been around a lot since then. It was definitely written by Fred Clifton (he confirmed it) although clearly not originally for the general public (it was for a Masters) - emotions fly without the context! :book: He is only comparing the MiG-29A/ 9.12A (or MiG-29G even) he flew - that's all I will say.

However, there was some criticism of the new, high-tech weapons systems. A GAO study said that the Navy's underpowered F-14A would be inferior to the aircraft it was replacing, the F-4J, which led Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) to say the program had been managed by ìa group of kamikaze pilots determined to commit procurement suicide. (Michel III M.L , The Revolt of the Majors: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM) Sprey loves taking credit for dead peoples work - bit of a scumbag if you ask me. This is not the best video technically (some statements are incorrect) but they are correct to try and pull apart the misinformation he is trying to spread. Go to about 35:40 mins:

Okay - lets take the last bit: Out of all Production F-35s flying only the US Marine Corps has declared an IOC (Initial Operational Capability) which was done last year. I am not aware of Bogdan making Dec 2016 a make or break for the program (Perhaps he could give us a source for that) - however the USAF F-35A goes IOC between Aug 2016 & Dec 2016 as a threshold - been that way since 2013 at least. [ame]https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/12994/f-35_ioc_joint_report_final.pdf[/ame] You will see the F-35C is set for 2019 - Nothing to see here :) Has it now - lets look at the source he provides to back that up (The aviation Investment challenge): Correct me if wrong because I'm just scanning it but all I can find is a proposal to reduce annual quantities brought from 60 to 48 - so not reduce overall numbers just annual numbers?. So how is this backing away?? it states PROPOSAL and he gives this as one of only 2 sources - hmmmm . As for his other source - perhaps not: The US Air Force has denied any plans to purchase another tranche of Lockheed Martin F-16 or Boeing F-15 combat jets following reports it could seek bids for up to 72 new aircraft. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-denies-seeking-more-f-16-or-f-15-combat-jets-419473/ Although Stillion did a legit RAND report in 2008, IIRC he had nothing to do with the F-35 can't turn, can't run, etc report (Or I cant believe he would put his name on that?). That appeared to be written by people who didn't have a basic understanding of Aero and used some pretty basic and irrelevant wingloading / T/W charts. I cant find that pdf anymore (its not listed with Stillions RAND papers) anyway RAND had to issue this official statement: “Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.” http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html As for the rest its probably on this thread already - get reading.