probad

sentiments that are not being borne out by reality. - at $95mil a pop (and expected to go down to $80mil) they are already cheaper than the super hornet, ef2000, and rafale (hehe did you forget you had to buy tgps for these?) - how many f-35 mishaps can you actually name? in over 125,000 hours of operation now the f-35's most significant incident that im aware of is a engine fire on the ground. f-35b has had zero incidents. and it's in demand: italy is recieving them, japan wants them, and even israel wants b models despite having a's. by the way, even though it's given the b designation, the stovl version is the original baseline f-35 design. it's a purebred shortfield aircraft, an actual realization of the long sought dream of an agile supersonic shortfield aircraft -- and then some, because back during the depths of the cold war they couldnt imagine an aircraft doing all of that while also being an invisible eye of sauron. what does politically driven even mean to you? do you somehow think other aircraft did not have to pass through political circles? do you think there somehow weren't any political interests behind other aircraft programs? do you think that not buying f-35s is somehow less politically motivated than buying them? (yes you know exactly who im talking about) these are rhetorical questions of course since we can't get into a political discussion here, but i think you need to learn some history before you go off making assertions like these which, frankly, i don't think are even your own. its kind of hilarious in a very sad way that nations like qatar, saudi arabia, and india (despite already having money in the su-57) who aren't in the clubhouse all want in on the f-35, while our nearest neighbor is outright refusing one of the greatest gifts to military aviation to date.

unlike the mig-15 the mig-17 has better transonic controllability, it has a radar ranged gunsight (derived from the sabre's no less), and it can carry aams. these are all significant features that materially give the sabre and mig-17 common capabilities not available to the mig-15. if you think an airplane starts with how its named and ends with how it looks, then you haven't learned a damn thing about airplanes.

no bull = not from bulls ok??????????????

unrequested messages directed to you from awacs are still bogey dopes, so they're relative to you. its almost as if you're making every effort not to understand whats going on here.

our f-86 would actually make for a more accurate mig-17 stand-in.

he who turns, burns harriers are more or less free kills in a visual fight, especially against the f-86. against the mig-15 it's got one thing it can do but nobody ever does it. however its true that you can kill anything with anything as long as you manage to find the right set of conditions.

how would daylight tv seeker head of 500kr and 29t see what lltv sees? it doesnt. you simply dont use tv seeker weapons in poor light.

oh cool, you're the dude that wrote the flightgear f-14 nice to see you around

acknowledged in an earlier post

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202510

you should just post some tracks if you are ever honestly curious to get your problem addressed.

hes saying he was flying it in his dream in regards to beta testing, read this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=50779

when this happens to me its because i accidentally toggle the fn key on my keyboard.

oh okay i stand corrected then

i think he is asking for the target acquire button, the functionality which should be found on the sensor control switch (stick castle up)

please elaborate what you mean by "cant update" if you want us to help troubleshoot.

MiG-21 RP-21 = Spin Scan MiG-19P RP-1/RP-5 = Scan Odd MiG-19PM RP-2U = Scan Can

yeah i think that part is marketing bluster, they took the whole "generation" concept and are now running away with it, the implied intent being that they can just somehow leapfrog into the lead by saying so.

in the end though aaa shells are not guided and even with atmospheric data figured in tracers may still be needed to verify their trajectories so that any further corrections can then be made

we havent even started exploiting 5thgen capabilities yet and you people think we can already move on to 6thgen? generational shifts are not simply about simple statistical inflation, they are about shifts in paradigm, and you can't know what new approach you will need until you've learned the lessons of the previous generation.

bubble canopy man bubble canopy this thing is going to own in the 3rdgen arena and will remain a credible threat to 4thgens in permissive terrains.

radar target relative altitude symbology in the screencap is reversed from what we see in the mig-21, is that correct or a mislabel?

i don't buy it, self-destructing shells have been around for a long time and it's a completely different mechanism from tracer flares. otherwise whoever is saying that is implying all the nontracer shells fired end up falling back to earth?

nobody is expecting to you to sight a target a 40nm. you have no business finding 20/30/40nm targets in an f-5 anyways because in that distance between you and him are any number of things that will upset your approach. knowing somethings out beyond 10nm is only good for situational awareness so that you know how long you can stick around for etc. use cover and look for targets at ~5nm. there are things you can do to increase your likelihood of seeing your target. rwr wont tell you about ir missiles rwr wont tell you about all the other guys who have eyeballed you and are sneaking up on you with radar off in those cases yes, rwr "doesn't work", and none of that should be considered "odd" in any sense. nothing's odd about people abusing techniques expressly to avoid your rwr, and there should be nothing odd about relying on your eyes and preventive measures in flying to counter that. like air combat's been around long before the radar was a thing, do you find it odd that props don't have rwr? i dont think so. --- lot of times success boils down to having the right expectations. it just sounds to me like you are expecting the wrong things.

if you're used to ww2 props like the spitfire, the turning on jets will feel agonizingly anemic but you need to be patient with it -- set your turn and wait to rate around while resisting the urge to haul back harder. there are times all that instantaneous turn capability should be used, but abusing it too much is the easiest way to land yourself in jail. of course not, that's what your eyes are for honestly sounds like you're relying too much on the airplane and not enough on yourself as a pilot. systems are there to help you, not to do things for you. you occupy yourself too much with the radar when you should just be eyeing the enemy and thinking about your approach geometry, and you think too much about the rwr when you should just be looking behind yourself. you defer too much to what the airframe is capable of when you should be deciding what to limit your maneuvers to.