MiG21bisFishbedL

Got my T-shirt yesterday here in the Midwest US.

I'd prefer the 102, but I'll def take a 106.

Now you've made that crowd mad!

This is a good post and I hope you find pirate gold somewhere soon. I'm not sure about the discord scuttlebutt, I rarely believe any of that since it rarely turns out to be legit, but I'd feel the more pressing matter is just how small Mag3 is and how they're dedicated to the Corsair. The frustration there is that they've been at it for years on the Corsair. I feel that's absolutely valid. It'd be kind of fantastic to actually get this fixed sooner rather than later, especially since the MiG's been out for 10 years; this coming Sept is the anniversary.

The Predator is pretty cool.

Thanks for the ID. I suspected that was the coloration on the tail.

Looks like the navigational mode. There's no indexes, no target selections, and that circle looks like the waypoint symbol. Not sure what the lower information is outside of the distance and heading readouts. It's definitely a 29G of the Luftwaffe. For comparison, here are some Yugoslav 9.12s and their own HUD symbology: Note the same circle? Waypoint. I was actually about to suggest that the "Q" is just an O with some detritus or a cloud in the way. And then, one more google search phrase change up and BAM!: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/when-u-s-navy-fighters-dogfighted-with-the-mig-29-fulcrum-remembering-exercise-agile-archer-2002/ Sure enough, German MiG-29s over Key West in 2002. KNQX.

I've had no real affection for the J-8 until Deka announced they were making one. Behind the F-4E and A-6, this is easily my bronze in terms of modules I'm hyped for. But, pull up a chair. It'll be a wait. I know, painful.

I've been preparing for a long time.

F-86 has been, basically, forgotten by ED. It's ballistics are still demonstrably incorrect and we've had our community guys kick up a stink about it. They just don't want to change those lines of code for whatever reason. REALLY makes me want to buy more of their gunfighters!

Bingo.

literally unplayable without it

This is the issue with satisfying little bites of info like that. It doesn't reflect the total reality of the USAF's utter incompetence and failing to prepare TACAIR for the conflict they were fighting.

From what I can glib, the Chinese Gov are pretty black and white on the topic. Basically, if the type in service? It's no bueno. After all, we're not getting a J-8A (J-8 I if you prefer that nomenclature). There's probably a lot more to it than that (I'm sure that they'd not care too much if Deka wanted to make a CJ-6A, after all), but it seems to be the simplified rule of thumb. It's also kind of nice in as so much as you instantly know what is good to go and what isn't. With the Peace Pearl, they can combined accessible information on its radar set as well as the aerodynamic qualities of the J-8 II, of which the PLAAF doesn't seem to cagey about.

Yeah, I was just wanting to point out that there's an even better case to be made by including the other researcher often cited. Human progress is an iterative and collective experience. And, frankly, the arguments *AGAINST* the J-8II as selected by Deka are wholly unconvincing and have remained as such.

You'll need correct references and data, something more than "it feels wrong." The nice thing is that the -21's stuff is pretty out in the open. The trick is finding the data for the correct variant as the MiG-21 saw immense changes to its lineage.

That's a gross oversimplification of that particular story. Thad Darger mentions Ufimtsev, but he's just one person associated with the F-117. Another name cited is Scottish scientist James Clark Maxwell. Although, this would further your point, over all.

I'd imagine; as I understand, they weren't SEAD weapons but, rather, air to air focused.

For those who are more well versed with Fulcrums and those involved with development: Would it possible for us to get the anti-radiation R-27s? Is there enough information in the hands of developers to model these? I can't find much information on these variants of the missile with a quick search.

The FC3 aircraft have good FMs, just simplified systems. Using it and then updating as development progresses makes a lot of sense.

Loiter time can be augmented by multiple flights. The 90 minute loiter of an A-10 is nice, but if you need CAS on standby for that long? You're better off relying on an attack helo which can be re-armed, refueled, and supported by a FARP that's much closer. That said, the 90 minute loiter was probably of great value in a counter-insurgency context. This is especially valuable vs. an enemy that is more nebulous and seeks to avoid a direct engagement. Which, once again, contributes to the A-10 successfully fulfilling the role of a COIN aircraft. This is a role that, as I initially stated, the F-35 will not be replacing the A-10 at. OA-1K will be. One of the OA-1K's performance figures reveals there is something to the value of loiter time to COIN operations as it has a loiter time of 6 hours within a 200nmi radius. I have experience with the aircraft its derived from and it can land on haggard strips of land, meaning it can possibly rely on the same FARPs that AH-64s rely on, given the right accommodations. As for maneuverability, it really needs to be qualified as it's a pretty broad topic. The F-35 can reach a max AoA of 110 degrees with the limiter disabled. The F-35 has the power to then recover from that and return to normal flight. Much of the hubbub about its inability to be maneuverable came from enthusiast press that didn't bother to read the information they were given fully and failed to glib the portions that indicated that the FBW software has gone through iterations and that has gradually improved performance. Some examples, like AF-01, never received those updates or only did so much later on. The A-10 has a tight turning circle, which is advantageous to the use of gun and rocket, but that's about it. And as for ammo count, you're not going to be loading down aircraft to their max payloads and throwing them into combat. Not even the truck that is the A-10, especially in a context where its used to its strengths as a counter-insurgency tool. You want that loiter time, so that demands fuel efficiency. In that regard, were I to load an A-10C for a COIN operation? I'd be looking at giving it APKWS and a TGP. With that lighter load, you require less throttle, that translates into less fuel burned, and more time on station. It also makes the aircraft a lot quicker in maneuver, allowing the A-10 to turn around faster to get back into a position to fire once more. This is what makes those turbine prop attacks so deadly in this context; they turn an even tighter circle than the A-10, they can carry a sufficient payload of sophisticated arms, and their lighter weight allows them access strips that the A-10 can't even. Especially if they have thrust reversal.

There's no real need for a trainer outside of light attack stuff. If you lawndart, then you restart.

They could also put an AESA radar into an F-102A and bring those back into squadron service. I would like that, but it doesn't mean it'd be a good idea. Why place such expensive materiel into a hopelessly outdated airframe? That's the issue with making the A-10 "stealth." Why put RAM on it when it could be put towards another aircraft, even a Have Glass Viper? The use of stealth concepts on something like the A-10 flies in the face of the very doctrines it operates under. In my civil career, I've flown aircraft that are faster than the A-10, meaning it can't escape trouble. It has no internal weapon bays and, when you carry the A-10's payload, that reflects radar very readily. The Have Glass F-16s have RAM to delay their eventual detection to a point that the Viper's superior speed and maneuverability can provide ample protection. There's a reason why they're favored in the SEAD role. The A-10, given a similar treatment, would lack that survivability. This was learned in Desert Storm; the A-10 has poor chances in a hot AO. The F-16 out sortied the A-10 while representing less losses and the F-111 out-killed it with its precision guided weapons, its ability to operate at night and in inclement weather (though, those issues have been addressed on the A-10), and without any losses during the entire combat operation to enemy action. 3 F-16s were lost. 6 A-10s were lost. But, sure, we could build a modern A-10 with all the niceties of the modern age. We could give it the EOTS to allow it to really see into the darkness. We could give it the EODAS to allow it unprecedented situational awareness. We could give it all the nice gubbins that make a modern fighter so potent and we're left with the same problem that the A-6F program faced: Why? Why are we putting next gen turbofans into an airframe that could recall Ike's presidency? Why are we placing a brand new radar set into an aircraft whose current crews weren't even alive when it first flew? Why are we even considering putting AMRAAMs on an aircraft that might have a lost Creedence Clearwater Revival 8 track laying in one of its storage bins? See, the Navy was quite keen to update the A-6. It had been the backbone of their strike capability for decades. It had proven itself extremely good at this, too. It gave the Navy and Marine Corps the ability to hit targets in any weather, day or night, in an accurate fashion. Marines who would've dreaded the onset of the monsoon season would now know that Intruders could provide much needed CAS if they needed it. This is a capability and status that the A-10 didn't even hold with the USAF. So, the idea of making its primary strike platform more potent and more deadly was a tempting idea. Until, they considered it a little more. See, the A-6F was going to have all those options. It was going to have the F404 engine, it was going to have a much nicer AN/APQ-173 radar, MFDs, and the ability to carry and launch AMRAAMs. Eventually, the Navy discovered a better option. They could have a fighter that had similar capabilities but could also actually conduct the various air-to-air and fleet defense missions they needed done. This fighter could utilize the latest in computing technology and ergonomics, meaning that the two person crew of the Intruder could have their entire job done by a single pilot. This aircraft was the F/A-18 Hornet. It fulfilled everything the A-6F program set out to accomplish and more. The only thing the A-6 had over the F/A-18, at the time, was total payload. But, when we're talking the use of precision weapons like Paveways and Mavericks, payload starts to lose its importance. And besides that, the Super Hornet almost matches the Intruders' payload completely, only being lighter by a slight margin. To be accurate, the stated reason for the A-6F's cancellation was the A-12 Avenger program, but all roads lead to Rome, here. This is still preferable to keeping a legacy aircraft in your units since those old aircraft get more and more expensive to operate as time goes by and reopening assembly lines is almost never even considered. The only time I can recall that happening? The A-10's predecessor, the A-1 Skyraider. While it proved itself a fantastic CAS platform, the Skyraider was not even considered something they'd throw into contested airspace or into airspaces with SAM activities. Most A-1 losses were to AAA. Why? It was slow. We do have stories of Skyraiders winning dogfights, but that has a lot more to do with the inexperience of VPAF MiG-17 crews than it does the A-1. Ask any of those guys behind the stick of A-1s ambushed by MiG-17s and they'll tell you it was a nightmare scenario. The supposed stealth A-10 I described? It already exists: It's the F-35A. If you're needing stealth, it's because you're going into a very dangerous environment. You're going to need speed, stealth, and maneuverability to come out alive and the A-10 lacks all 3 of those. The A-10 proved itself to be an expensive, but effective COIN aircraft. This is not a role you need much stealth for outside of the cloak of darkness. The A-10's time is here. It is better that its fans accept that than cling onto the false hope that it could find relevance on a modern battlefield. Were it to come to that? It would find itself sharing a similar ignominious end as the Luftwaffe's Ju-87 did once it encountered contested airspace.

That's a lot of crayons!

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if some operators who use later variants get represented on the A.