Emu

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/explosion-heard-on-cockpit-voice-recorder-of-downed-russian-airliner/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17

His counterpoint is that ECM has also improved. But even a single BVR missile kill in a fair 4vs4 (say) fight turns a fair fight into an unfair fight. And even the pretty crappy AIM-7s in Vietnam polished off a significant number of MiGs pre-dogfight. And furthermore, all the planes Sprey hated, turned out successful. F-15, F-14. Even the F-4, which he described as a terrible plane was about 3:1 in the hands of the USAF and USMC and 6:1 in the hands of the USN. With a gun it would have been more successful though. https://web.archive.org/web/20121031043534/http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?180731-Modern-fighter-combat-records

The eye of the storm: Captor-E interview http://hushkit.net/2015/06/06/the-eye-of-the-storm-captor-e-interview/

Well there's really only two possibilities for a modern airliner's fuselage splitting in two: a) Bomb; b) Gross negligence in maintenance and certification. And IS have taken credit for it, plus reported mid-air heat flash. It would certainly be foolish to assume it wasn't a bomb at this stage.

It was knowing how to use the weapon mainly in the case of the AIM-7 and knowing about launch parameters. By and large it may have been a training issue. Ritchie actually spoke with the designers and found out the true operating limits of the AIM-7. The AIM-9 had known tracking issues above a certain g, which made it unsuitable for dog-fighting. The AIM-4 was just all kinds of crap, maybe the worst AAM ever. Today's missiles have operating parameters too but they're much less restrictive and the pilots much more aware of them.

Many misses were pilot error. If you actually took someone who knew how to use AIM-7s, the results were significantly better. E.g. Steve Ritchie. 13 shots, 5 hits, 2 out of parameter, one with no target. Actual missile Pk ~50%.

Actually energy fighters would have worked better in WWII. Vietnam, or maybe Vietnam minus 5-10 years is where his theories would hold true. Poor guy is stuck in 1960.

You probably won't find any better than the NATOPS manual.

Why not?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/russian-jet-crash-airline-dismisses-technical-problems-human-error-as-cause-2015-11-02

Oh sorry, I wasn't actually answering you, I was just making a general contribution to the thread.:thumbup:

I posted the same video about a week ago because it was posted again recently too.

AMASE DIRCM system.

So I think I figured out the ICP specifications. http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/JSF-Integrated-Avionics-Par-Excellence_1067.html#.ViztOrfhCUk http://embeddedstar.com/press/content/2004/2/embedded12722.html https://www.mrcy.com/products/boards/race_powerpc7448/ https://www.mrcy.com/products/boards/race_powerpc7448/ http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/fact_sheet/MPC7448FACT.pdf

:lol: According to Bill Sweetman.

http://americans.org/2015/09/21/china-just-secretly-tested-the-fastest-aircraft-in-the-world/

The suspicion is that he may have left the ejection too late in trying to avoid houses, leading to an out-of-parameter ejection.

This one is a TOS-1A though.;)

I agree, HAL is the issue. If they were maintaining something the size of the USAF, there'd be a crash every day.

BBC report says he did eject. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-34593948

Now I've seen everything.