G.J.S

That Pantsir looks stunning, excellent work Sir.

This ^^^^. A fantastic read that’s hard to put down.

Lightning would be a no-go, no matter what you upgraded it with. At the time Tornado appeared it was already outmoded. Jaguar? The aircraft that relies upon the circumference of the earth to help it get airborne? (Just a good natured ribbing to the Jag mates). The only really shining examples were the capabilities of the Indian DARIN birds. But again, was already outmoded toward the end. Either of puffer-jets? There was supposedly great promise in the PCB work, but after systems, there isn’t really much else to make it more potent. In all cases, the amount of revenue that would be spent to make any of them more relevant in the modern battle space, would be more than enough to kickstart a new platform entirely.

Yep, that’s practically what I heard.

I've heard of it. A Jag mate who spent time in Oman mentioned a few 'incidents' - like an airfield beat up that went through one of the hangers! Another almost slicing off the port wing by hitting a pole (pole was only 16 feet in height, 9 feet thereafter). They had their own "Star Wars Canyon" down there also - unsure of its exact location but some of the switchbacks were rather sporty apparently.

Wouldn't be this would it?? Some other images . .

You can make a bomber out of a fighter, but it just don't work the other way round! Its because of that wing loading that it is so stable down in the weeds when swept - absolutely rock steady. But then that is what the airframe as a whole was designed for - fast and low hell bent on the target - not turning with a fighter. Best defense? - hike your skirt and run like f**k!

Yes. Slippery little f*£%er! The GR1 can run hard, but cant really turn worth a damn - far too small a wing, plus the pilot has to contend with manual wing sweep - just to make life more awkward! But low down and with a head of steam, extremely quick. The F.3, the ADV (semi-fighter) had better engines, but kept the same wing, so it was no 'turner' at all, interceptor only.

He had DeBellevue as WSO didn't he? Certainly some illustrious names.

Egyptian film stars? Nice

Air brakes only as-and-when, typically if I misjudged the oppo’s speed and I came in a little “too hot”! Biggest (WVR) headaches came from Buccaneer - V fast/V low and seemingly (gun) camera shy. Could never get a solution on them if they were piling on the coals, F-111 for similar reasons. F-15A and F-16 were just painful - if you lost tally on them for 1 second in a furball, they inevitably were directly behind! Never went against an F-18, so cannot comment on those. Mirage when at altitude seemed to defy all physics - absolute P.I.T.A! F-14 seemed to be dependent on the “meat behind the stick”. Have danced with one that made my eyes water, and caught another that must have been quite a wake up call to that particular crew, as in “don’t discount the old machine, ‘cause it’ll spank you”. They were royally spanked. Have never tangled with a MiG-21, so cannot state anything there, but they were reportedly more of a threat than the MiG-23 (23 was supposedly the successor for the 21). MiG-29s etc, ive only seen at air shows, but they certainly appear quite spicy!

Personally, having never jousted with the MiG-19, nor the MiG-21, I can’t speak for those. The Mig-23ML with the Czech Air Force I have had ‘playtime’ with whilst in the FGR2. The MiG-23 was at its best with the wings at 45*, and the speeds not below 450kts. Level accel rates were blistering. Looping manoeuvres were large, with high speed entry making for a large height change. When the speed dropped and the wings came forward - the MiG was an ace maker. Just not for the MiG pilot. It tended to suffer instability at lower airspeeds, and mixed with the horrendous view from the cockpit, was limited in options. Climbing scissors could easily flush the MiG, and if he lost sight it was easy to go out of phase and take him. Descending scissors were essentially the same, as the MiG would struggle to limit speed gain, and would sail ahead - altitude allowing anyway. In the flat was just as easy. However, any mistakes by the F-4 would be capitalised upon quickly, the MiG can pile on the knots rapidly and extend if the F-4 is gun only, any missile still onboard makes this risky for the MiG. The relatively slim profile of the MiG can be used to its advantage, as compared to the bulk of the F-4, the MiG can be difficult to acquire visually from 10 down to about 5NM. If (IF!) the MiG survives a sparrow shot, then sidewinders from the rear should be easy to attain, and if all AAM’s are expended, scissoring can flush the MiG and provide a relatively easily attainable gun solution.

On FGR2 we would just go to min burner to clean up, stops a visual pick up. Not much point splitting throttles. Spey was A LOT cleaner than J-79’s, but would still give a trail, min burner under about 10 - 15 miles of a foe would deny the foe that telltale sign.

Doubtful. PM a moderator to be sure.

Indeed! It’s unique aircrew like that you need to hold in high regard - not admonish! Yes it was risky, one wrong slip could have speared him through the face, but when lives are on the line, sometimes you need someone who is willing to embrace the unconventional and make it work. BIG brass ones . . .

Big brass cajones. I wouldn’t want to catch that huge hook in the face with 20-odd tons of Phantom pushing back on it. That windshield framing isn’t that strong! Some serious control.

The only time I have thought “heaven” & “Star Trek” in the same sentence was when I clapped eyes on seven of nine . . .

I have never flown in a Mig, I have sparred AGAINST MiG-23ML that were (then) in Czech service - we are talking a little over 30 years ago now! However, I have seen the performance of the ML in mock combat, and although sprightly, was a 'relatively' easy lunch. It was at its best in slashing attacks - quick in > very quick out. But if it stayed around to turn a bit, it invariably lost.

It certainly can add to the experience. I don’t use it all the time, but sometimes I will just to add that variable. With renditions of older airframes failures certainly can be a relatively frequent occurrence. Newer aircraft can have a MTBF that makes it relatively infrequent. Ultimately it’s YOUR sim - make it as interesting as YOU desire.

SME interpretation of a memory can be variable also, as in the more or less power than should be available debate. Elapsed time can impinge on accuracy of feel. Going by the book numbers will only get you 80% of the way - the rest, the feel, can only really come from accurate memory, the more recent, the more accurate. A likeness would be going by a recipe - if you had the numbers only, the ingredients and their ratios, and the method, how would you know if it’s correct if you have never “tasted” it? I can remember favourite dishes from my youth, but the memory of the taste is likely more glossy than they actually were. You need a broad spread of SME input and look for the common factors.

That is just a massive cannon with engines attached!

Look a few posts above - don’t do a “me”! Lol

True words brother. It always amused me - “fast jet” - stating the obvious! Aircraft being the correct and broad term for machinery that commits aviation. ‘Jets’ is just being lazy. The Heatblur stable is sure gaining some true thoroughbred icons.

Did I mention I have the memory of a goldfish? Did I mention I have the memory of a goldfish? Did I m . . . .

True. South Korean too.