MiG21bisFishbedL

Having that mission set in DCS would be a blast.

If we only wanted to use the most sophisticated, we'd not be wanting the Phantom when the Hornet, Jeff, and Viper are available.

By that logic, why even bother with the F-106? We have the F-16 as it is. It's because, these old century series interceptors are interesting. The compromises and attempts to make the most sophisticated aircraft of the era make them unique.

That's a sweet piece of footage. I'd love to sling R-73s, even though it looks like we won't get 'em.

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.