BlackLion213

:thumbup: Can't get enough of these posts. BTW, is this NTTR? Quite fitting if so! You and my daughter could have some great conversations. :) -Nick

I thought I did...wasn't "hump day" yesterday? ;) -Nick

It's a nice video, thank you for posting. But as the above text implies, drones can be used a lot of different ways (though most are not used as maneuvering targets - I agree about that). I'm glad you found the above text helpful. :) -Nick

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=F-14+Gillcrist Page 41 of this book describing the hit on a maneuvering drone. Have a good night. :) -Nick

[ame]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14313_ch3.pdf[/ame] Please go to page 3-14, the AIM-54C has provisions for dogfighting and is intended for more than just long-range shots against bombers. My 2 cents, -Nick PS - Just asking if you have proof...you know...since you really want hard proof of things. Do you have a picture? :)

OK, what about the February 2nd, 1973 test where it hit a drone pulling 6Gs? -Nick PS - Do you have the picture of that 737? ;) Does it have an 80 deg AOB...and stalling? :)

Well, it's worth mentioning that an AIM-54A did hit a QF-86 drone that was pulling a 6G turn on February 2nd, 1973 at Pt Mugu. Also, this picture shows a QF-4B drone that is pulling several Gs (as indicated by the wingtip vortices). BTW, I've posted this picture several times before, so I apologize for the repetition. With these 2 known kills...yes I believe it could hit a fighter maneuvering at 4Gs (or more). Is there a reason to think otherwise? -Nick

This chart map definitely got my attention. Looking at where the airbases are located (since there are lots of other bases that are not visible on the map, like Bahrain), it's seems that the high detailed area is the centered 390 km x 390 km that was mentioned when the map was announced. That said, having a large, low detail area around the center would be REALLY helpful for expanding the utility of the map. Even if the low detail area is just water with a really basic coastline, it would go a long way. This chart map extends up to Bushehr (nearly) and Farsi island, which was the site of several armed encounters between the IRCG and 160th SOAR back in 1987-88. It also extends southeast to the Northern Arabian sea, having these areas would allow mission/campaign designers to create many more interesting scenarios, especially at the end of the Cold War and the "Tanker Wars". I really hope that ED includes a low detail area that matches or gets to ~75% of what is shown on the chart map. Perhaps, but wouldn't contracts and classified data also impede other professional customers from using the same resources/modules? Why advertise them at all? I agree that this should not be viewed as an announcement or confirmation, but it probably is a glimpse into ED's hopes and potential next steps after they release their announced modules. This is a novel way for ED to clue us into their direction, since they have plausible deniability if a project proves unfeasible despite their intentions to do it. Plus, forum members were lead to this site by SiThSpAwN (aka...sources close to ED...:)), hardly seems like an accidental discovery. -Nick

Maybe...but from what I've read the AIM-120 is using systems that are incrementally improved over what was found in the AIM-54 (at least the C variant). The guidance system from the AIM-54C was funneled directly into the AMRAAM program (per reports). Having newer variants means that the current AMRAAM's systems are better, but probably not night and day different IMHO. This is the real advantage and why the AIM-54 became an anachronism. Everyone wanted the AIM-54's unique capabilities in a package that was small and could be carried in large numbers by US fighters. Even the 40,000 lb Tomcat would only carry 2 Phoenixes under normal conditions vs 6 AMRAAMs for the F-15 (despite the smaller airframe). Plus the AMRAAM has about 60-70% of the Phoenix's range. Having 6 AMRAAMs is a better loadout with fewer performance trade-offs compared to 2 AIM-54s (which still weigh as much as all 6 of those AMRAAMs, not to mention the Phoenix pallets). It's just the steady evolution of a weapon system, the AMRAAM is the end goal, but wasn't always technologically possible - hence the Phoenix. -Nick

One small correction, at least per this reference (page 2 under propulsion) , the AIM-54A and AIM-54C use different rocket motors. The AIM-54A uses the Mk 60 mod 0 while the AIM-54C uses the Mk 47 mod 1. :) -Nick

I agree about the safe-word (my wife and I prefer the traditional pronunciation of "gnocchi" ;)). But without the frame of reference (like screen shots/discussion/etc), it has felt more like "Mr Turtle's Continued Saunter..." :) -Nick

Well yeah....hard to argue I guess. :) -Nick

Echoing TurkeyDriver's excellent post, I think it depends on how you intend to use the Phoenix. Long-range, lofting shots with the AIM-54 are unlikely to result in kills against maneuvering targets (as would be expected of a missile launched at max or near max range). However, the AIM-54 was designed to address a wide variety of different targets and used different modes and flight plans depending on the use. As mentioned by TurkeyDriver, the AIM-54A was the first A-A missile that was able to hit an drone maneuvering at 6Gs and the ability to hit maneuvering targets was part of it's original design specification (Per RADM Gillcrist in his book.) Per Tomcat crews who served in the 1980s, they had a lot more confidence in the ability of the AIM-54 to hit a target than the Sparrow. This is a nice article by "Bio" Baranek that discusses the Phoenix: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279 (It's a long article with the 1980s A-A stuff in the middle). He also mentions that the AIM-54C arrived "just in time" and was a much better anti-fighter weapon than the AIM-54A (or AIM-7M Sparrow in their mind). According the this source the guidance system from the AIM-54C was plugged into the AMRAMM program. I don't know if that means similar behaviors, but the AIM-54C did have ACM modes and updates to facilitate attacks on maneuvering targets. This image is of an AIM-54C attacking a drone during testing in 1983: The key take-away is not that the AIM-54C could hit a drone (hard to justify procuring them if it couldn't), but that this is a tail-chase shot against a drone that is pulling Gs in a hard bank (notice the tip-vortices). The US Navy was testing the AIM-54Cs ability to destroy a maneuvering, fighter sized target at close range. It seems that they didn't view the AIM-54C as an "anti-bomber" weapon from what I have read. If you plan to use the AIM-54C (or AIM-54A) at long range for large non-maneuvering targets and closer range for fighter targets (like launch ranges that are 100-140% of what you'd use for an AIM-120C), then you'll probably find it quite useful and effective against a wide variety of targets. Not necessarily as good as the AMRAAM (unlikely overall), but better than the Sparrow or other contemporary options (mid-late 1980s weapons). But it's all just a guess till the LNS Tomcat is out and we'll probably never know how good or bad the AIM-54C would have been against live targets IMHO. -Nick

I've read plenty about the F-14A vs F-5E, here is a summary of what I've seen. I don't have any hard numbers on exchange rates, except a mention my RADM Gillcrist in his book that F-14As were averaging 2.5 successes per sortie during ACEVAL/AIMVAL (that may not be exchange ratios), which was higher than the F-15. The official report from ACEVAL/AIMVAL was that US 4th gen fighters could count on a 2:1 exchange rate and this may be what was documented from the exercise. On the topic of performance, the F-14A was reported as superior in every primary aerodynamic performance metric: STR, ITR, rate of climb, acceleration, and performance in the vertical. This is a quote from Commander "Hawk" Smith during an informal briefing, he was the first commander of Top Gun who made a guest appearance during ACEVAL/AIMVAL flying the F-5E: "One-on-one, our F-5s can't win a neutral fight against a properly flown Block 90 (F-14A)." However, the F-5E had 2 advantages in WVR (clearly BVR is not the F-5E's strength): roll rate and smallness. It could torment Tomcat crews by continuously changing directions, which the F-14 could not match (though there were tactical work arounds that crews had to learn - namely extending into the vertical). Also, the F-5 was really hard to see. This was it's biggest advantage by far - it could really sneak up on things. You can only counter maneuvers that you can see and F-5Es could come out of nowhere to kill an opponent. Speaking to this part: At least against F/A-18s and F-14s, F-5E's managed to "kill" their opponent all the time. Losing to a F-5E was a frequent event for new and even some experienced fleet pilots. The F-5E does not have any performance advantages, but it's close enough that 4th gen pilots need to properly employ their fighter to succeed. This means that the man still matters more than the machine. Plus, the F-5Es aren't generally engaging in a fair fight as aggressors. They often know their opponent's planned route and moments of opportunity. Thats the objective of training. Plus, one of the other teaching points of the F-5E is that it doesn't look like a strong opponent on paper, but it can still win if you don't stay on top of things. Also, against the upcoming LNS F-14A (more so than the F-14B), the F-5E has a chance because their are enough potential mistakes and employment errors that F-5Es could get the upper hand in a WVR fight. Once the Tomcat crews get experience and learn the aircraft, things will get much tougher for the F-5E. Still, the door will be open for F-5Es to win against many opponents (much like the MiG-21 vs FC3 fighters currently), but it will be tactics and exploiting the enemies weaknesses. My 2 cents, Nick

Plentiful is vacation is great for the soul. I am allotted a decent amount of vacation given my profession (almost 8 weeks including "official holidays"). But it's tough for me to take 3-4 weeks at a time. I am envious of that part. :) -Nick

So true, in fact it was the topic my very first post on the forum (March 2015): http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2347710&postcount=117 Also, Cobra mentioned that there is already a teaser trailer....can't hurt to give us quick look. (unless it hurts someone...like Homer Simpson said) -Nick

Ah man, can I have a 3 month vacation? That sounds awesome. The irony in this statement is that ED seems to release all of their updates on Friday (directly before a weekend). I guess ED and their partners are gluttons for punishment (or at least masochists... ;)). How else could they tolerate this forum :megalol: (kidding...sort of) -Nick PS - Like everyone else, I really hope it's sooner than September

That was awesome, thank you for sharing the link! I'm really excited about this aircraft, a Western fighter of this vintage (before FBW and glass cockpits) is exactly what I like. Looks like this one will not disappoint. :) -Nick

+1 Though it seems to be a defining feature of Swedish aircraft, they tend to have a rather unique look and interesting design. Everything from the J-29 onward is pretty distinctive, they certainly stand out from the crowd. I suppose the Gripen shares a similar layout with the other European 4.5+ fighters, but since the Viggen started that trend/aerodynamic layout - I'd call that resemblance an exception and more a matter that other countries caught on. ;) I do love the look of the J-35 Draken, a wonderful thing to behold. :) -Nick

This is why Leatherneck is creating a theater for the Viggen, so the module will have a proper home. But the options become narrower if a developer does not want to create a new theater for their module (which is a huge amount of extra work). Plus there are a lot of incoming theaters with great associated module options. (IMHO) -Nick

I'd buy the F-5E, especially knowing that the F/A-18C is on the way and the current functionality built into the FC3 F-15C. Aircraft of the F-5E's era are my favorite and I like the diversity over expanding the scope of the F-15C. Just my preference. -Nick

Nice. :) And on that note: [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] -Nick

This sounds excellent. I've been hoping for something like this in NTTR - I need a bit of a push to spend the time learning the A-10C, hopefully this will be it. :) Referencing pages and such would also be a big help - all of this sounds great! :) -Nick

+1 It's going to be an awesome match up - can't wait. :D (disclaimer - I know it won't always end this way :)) -Nick

Awesome update, thank you. :) I love the look of the SA342L and the versatility of having 2 versions. I am quite happy with the Gazelle thus far (besides not having enough free time for practice ;)). Thank you for the excellent work and I'm excited to try the updates. -Nick