adese Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Another awesome interview from Foxtrot Alpha. Interview with Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton. Some really cool notes about flying the MiG-29. One thing I found really interesting : One sensor that got a lot of discussion from Intel analysts was the infrared search-and-track system (IRSTS). Most postulated that the MiG-29 could use the passive IRSTS to run a silent intercept and not alert anyone to its presence by transmitting with its radar. The IRSTS turned out to be next to useless and could have been left off the MiG-29 with negligible impact on its combat capability. After a couple of attempts at playing around with the IRSTS I dropped it from my bag of tricks. Really makes you think about all those sneaky ET kills you've snagged on the 104th huh. Enjoy! (Click here for the article) 1
King_Hrothgar Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 But it is a hoot to fly. I learned more about stick-and-rudder fighter piloting in the F-5 than I did in anything else. In the high horsepower jets, thrust can make up for a lot of mistakes. Not so with the F-5. It's a little jet with lots of bullets. Interesting read, thanks for linking. He also confirmed what I've been saying for a while, DCS: F-5 needs to be a thing. :D
Cali Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 How to win a dogfight: Stories from a pilot that flew F-16's and Migs Got this from a guy on the BMS forums, it's a good read, long, but good. I hope you guys enjoy it. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379 i7-4820k @ 3.7, Windows 7 64-bit, 16GB 1866mhz EVGA GTX 970 2GB, 256GB SSD, 500GB WD, TM Warthog, TM Cougar MFD's, Saitek Combat Pedals, TrackIR 5, G15 keyboard, 55" 4K LED
Charly_Owl Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Very interesting read, mate. Thanks for the trouble! Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library Chuck's Guides on Mudspike Chuck's Youtube Channel Chuck's Patreon
thawall Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Damn!! Made me want the Viper in DCS even more ;-)
*Rage* Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Great read! Says some very unconventional things about IRST, Mig29 and F15 and F16 capabilities! Not very kind about the F35 either. Interesting to hear a USAF instructor pilots POV. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22
TAW_Blaze Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Another awesome interview from Foxtrot Alpha. Interview with Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton. Some really cool notes about flying the MiG-29. One thing I found really interesting : Really makes you think about all those sneaky ET kills you've snagged on the 104th huh. Enjoy! (Click here for the article) DCS doesn't model a lot of environmental effects that would otherwise ruin IRST performance. For a start, clouds. I flew enough BFM against the Raptor before I retired where the new Raptor pilots were discovering there's a time for thrust vectoring and there's a time to leave that club in the bag. :D If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors. Upon reading the question I thought the exact same. :D Edited February 4, 2015 by <Blaze>
karambiatos Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 DCS doesn't model a lot of environmental effects that would otherwise ruin IRST performance. For a start' date=' clouds.[/quote'] Or the sun A 1000 flights, a 1000 crashes, perfect record. =&arrFilter_pf[gameversion]=&arrFilter_pf[filelang]=&arrFilter_pf[aircraft]=&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC"] Check out my random mods and things
King_Hrothgar Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Which is funny because my IR missiles go charging after the sun all the time if it's in view and yet the EOS can't see it. The MiG-21's radar also detects clouds and mountains much better than it detects planes. So the ability is definitely there within the DCS structure but it isn't implemented for any of the FC3 planes. But that is kind of the point of FC3 I suppose. It would be nice to have full DCS versions of all the FC3 planes, for those of us who want a bit more depth.
SDsc0rch Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 a lot of good info there like this... We did not employ the Fulcrum as the Warsaw Pact had intended. We employed it using western tactics. Mostly like the F-16 before it got AMRAAM. Although we had a BVR missile, we weren't going to stand toe-to-toe with AMRAAM shooters and win. We had to be sneaky. *cough*cough* i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Pikey Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 A great read, especially worth while sharing with the f35 technology fanboys and the Mig/Sukoi pvp fans. Dogfighting and piloting remain core skills despite technological changes and off boresight HMT is seriously advantageous. Long live the classic airframes! 1 ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *
Pilotasso Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) I want a GE powered viper now. :) What a shame the USAF has no direct replacement for it but the stealth version of the "F-111" ;) Edited February 7, 2015 by Pilotasso .
PFunk1606688187 Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 But dat sensor fusion brah! Warning: Nothing I say is automatically correct, even if I think it is.
Basher54321 Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Follow up to the original article: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&start=540 Copy all wrt my F-35 comments and I'll take the barbs if you're so inclined to chuck 'em my direction. Passing up the opportunity to keep one's mouth shut always invites an equal and opposite reaction and I should've taken the shut-up approach. That any of us offer opinions about jets that none of us has ever flown or only flown against is done quite often on websites such as these. Most times those opinions are lacking or just plain wrong. I've never flown the Mirage 2000, but wasn't too impressed by what I experienced. No, I'm not a reader of Foxtrot Alpha and the only article I'd ever seen from that website was one about a former squadron mate flying BFM against his son. Former squadron mate in a Viper, son in a Strike Eagle. Reading through the posts, Tyler Rogoway stated that the Viper was better in horizontal maneuvering and the (light gray) Eagle was better in the vertical. Hardly ever replying to web posts, I did reply that the Viper (GE-powered anyway) is better at both. He somehow knew of my flight history and asked if I'd respond to an internet interview. So I answered his questions on my experiences and offered my opinions on others. I'm not aware that he has any hidden F-35 agenda. I've not read anything else that he has written. Almost all the e-mails I've gotten regarding what I said about the F-35 have been positive, to include a former Lockheed/Martin executive that I've know for many years. But with the amount of response I garnered, I decided to take a closer look at what I'd said and research more about the F-35 than what I'd picked up in bar talk and internet reports (not Foxtrot Alpha). After spending a couple of days peeling back the onion skin I've amended my overall assessment of the F-35 and posted this on Foxtrot Alpha to revise my statement: Being an adherent to the saying that a wise man acknowledges his mistakes and a fool defends his; I was probably a little harsh on my assessment of the F-35. But those opinions were formed through my exposure to things going on at Nellis. Did I bite off on chaff? I will stand by my comment that the three variants and the required commonality between the three results in performance penalties, especially for the A and the C models. After discussions with an old engineer friend of mine, who was also one of John Boyd's guys, the F-35 actually has a higher fuel fraction than the F-22 and, therefore, potentially better range. I also talked to someone who recently checked out in the Lightning II and his description of fuel burn rips holes in my previous opinion. Scratch that off the list. The new F-35 pilot was also impressed with acceleration in a certain subsonic speed regime. So I'll concede that. The F-35 will probably never have the raw dogfighting potential of the F-16, but the different customers bought off on that. Not a requirement? I always figured it was better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it. A former HH-60 pilot and coworker of mine always jests about fighters not really needing guns. The previous statement is my normal comeback. Regardless, the fighter pilots that fly and will fly the F-35 could take any airplane they get and figure how to be lethal with it and dominate any enemy. Of than I'm certain. So, in the end, the Lightning II is not such a pig after all. It has great avionics and will do fine. The program has still cost too much and has been poorly managed by the DoD and Lockheed/Martin. But that's another story. Would I still rather fly the Raptor? You bet. I guess in the end you got to dance with what brung ya. In my case, back to the beginning with two tails and two engines. The Raptors do mostly air-to-air (as far as I know); and for that mission, mission planning isn't much more than filling out a line-up card. At my age now, that's all the attention span I've got. I'd also build more Raptors and upgraded Vipers and Eagles. Heck, I want it all. Back to the Ronnie Reagan 40 fighter wings and a fighter jet in every garage!! Peace out, Spanky I'll also add I wish I were 20 years younger and get back out there. Unfortunately, if I ever got into a Raptor cockpit I'd probably be a 4-g max kind of guy. Edited February 7, 2015 by Basher54321 1
Flycat Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 blahblah I've read this article, very interesting and useful.
Recommended Posts