For next Fast jet Study SIM, what would you like it to be?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Frankly, no. And I'm not trying to mock you or start a flame war or something, but F/A-18E/F wouldn't really be my first choice. Gimme an F-14 or an Su-24, and I'll be happy...

 

F-111 and Su-24, now THAT would be cool. :D

[Alfa]

Don't get me started ;)

 

Call me dated, but I for sure see no thrill in flying that fat and slow hi-tech weapons delivery platform. Plus that the VF-103 markings simply don't mix with this overgrown Hornet version (IMHO).

 

Also, modern smart weapons are rather boring because in a way they do most of the work for you. Take for instance an attack on the bridge. In the old, "dumb" weapons days, you needed to go down and dirty making an iron bomb run or to guide LGBs in bad weather exposing yourself to the flak, SAMs, fighter cover, etc. The modern version is: approach from very high altitude, get close to 50 kms (at most), press button since the weapon of choice is already preprogrammed with coordinates, turn back, RTB, the only danger in the matter being not pulling the eject handle while straching yourself from boredom.

 

Now, this is all rather generalized and simplified view at the matter but I hope you get my point.

 

ijozic,

 

If the weapon you are delivering is an LGB(Laser Guided Bomb) - you are not going anywhere until it has impacted......unless you don't care about hitting your target ;) .

 

- JJ.

[Guest IguanaKing]

If you have PAVETack though, it allows you quite a bit of maneuvering room. I think he was talking about EGBUs, which can be either laser or GPS guided. ;)

[Alfa]

If you have PAVETack though, it allows you quite a bit of maneuvering room.

 

Hehe yeah but not to the extend of "RTB" as soon as you have pushed the release button ;) .

 

I think he was talking about EGBUs, which can be either laser or GPS guided. ;)

 

True - I guess with a GPS guided weapon it wouldn't be that far off :) .

 

- JJ.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Hehe yeah but not to the extend of "RTB" as soon as you have pushed the release button ;) .

 

Actually, it does allow you to do that, just as long as you don't turn or pull so hard you put the fuselage between you and the target. The sensor/designator in the F-111F PAVETack is mounted at the rear of that system and swivels on two axes, so you can turn your tail toward the target after release and still keep eyes on. ;)

[Alfa]

Actually, it does allow you to do that, just as long as you don't turn or pull so hard you put the fuselage between you and the target.....

 

....and the laser designator remains within range ;) .

 

The sensor/designator in the F-111F PAVETack is mounted at the rear of that system and swivels on two axes, so you can turn your tail toward the target after release and still keep eyes on

 

The system is set up in this way in order to allow you to continiue designating the target while flying over it - not to allow you to turn back and fly away from it.

 

- JJ.

[Tompax]

F-111 and Su-24, now THAT would be cool. :D

 

If you were a girl, I'd ask you out on a date...

[Guest IguanaKing]

The system is set up in this way in order to allow you to continiue designating the target while flying over it - not to allow you to turn back and fly away from it.

 

- JJ.

 

 

Nope...its specifically designed to allow you to turn away following weapons release to minimize your exposure to enemy fire over the target area. :)

[Shaman]

F-111 and Su-24, now THAT would be cool. :D

 

Oh Yessss :pilotfly:

[MBot]

I voted for Jag vs. MiG-27. There is nothing better than fast mudmovers doing it old style.

Though I didn't know the Jaguar manuals are available, considering the french and brits keep those quite thight.

 

Otherwise I am fine with anything that isn't a Falcon or a Hornet... If it realy got to be a mainstream fighter, then only the F-14A baby :)

 

I love these threads :)

[D-Scythe]

Nope...its specifically designed to allow you to turn away following weapons release to minimize your exposure to enemy fire over the target area. :)

 

Sorry, think I agree with Alfa here. You still need to stay within the range of the laser or else your LGB is just another dumb bomb.

[Guest IguanaKing]

True...but you also have to remember that the LGB is unpowered, therefore its fall time isn't that long, hence its going to be on the target before you are beyond the range of the laser. However, it IS going to be affected by environmental conditions and terrain. So, he is correct in his reasoning, but this profile is EXACTLY why the PAVE Tack was designed. ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Here's a link BTW, just so everybody can see it. What I read of this system was in Air Force Magazine in Mid-1986, and it pretty much said the same thing about weapon delivery. :D

 

http://www.f-111.net/CarloKopp/DRIVING-THE-PIG.htm

[Alfa]

Interesting......I didn't know about that delivery method.

 

The question is which is the more dangerous - enemy fire or the manouver to avoid it :D .

 

- JJ.

[SUBS17]

Interesting......I didn't know about that delivery method.

 

The question is which is the more dangerous - enemy fire or the manouver to avoid it :D .

 

- JJ.

 

You can do this in F4AF with LGBs, just gotta remember to turn right not left otherwise you lose lock on the target.

[ViperEagle]

Subs,

 

The current "Superhornet radar" is the same as that of the F/A-18C - namely the AN/APG-73 for which the capabilities are all but an exact match to those of the N010M of the MiG-29K - same type, same antenna size, similar operating modes, similar weapons capabilities. :)

 

Aside from the common naval multirole fighter theme, similar size, payload and operating range, the above is in fact one of the best arguments for a F-18 versus MiG-29K - you wont find a closer match in terms of systems between any US and Russian fighters :) .

 

Besides, I think the ability to "engage 8 targets at once" is something of a misconception in regards to the Hornet - the radar can track 10 targets, "stack" 8 of them for engagement, but AFAIK it can only guide missiles towards two of them simultaneously. For the "Zhuk" radar of the MiG-29K the corresponding figures are: track 10 targets, stack 4 of them for engagement and guide missiles towards two of them simultaneously.

 

P.S. nice shot of the Hornet with the buddy-to-buddy refuelling pack.....the MiG-29K has this capability too("UPAZ" pack) :) .

 

- JJ.

 

Not quite.....

 

The Block II Super Hornet radar is the Raytheon AN/APG-79 AESA Radar.

 

http://www.raytheon.com/products/apg79aesa/

[SUBS17]

The APG-73? It's a great radar definitely, but it's smaller size compared to the radars on the F-14/15 and new Su-27/MiG-31s still puts it at a disadvantage.

 

Anyway, wasn't the entire F-15C fleet fitted with APG-63V1 radars (an update with APG-73 tech) in the early/mid-90s? IMO, the APG-70/63V1, the APG-71 and the Zaslon phased array radar are probably the best radars to be found in any fighter within the timeframe of LOMAC.

 

You don't need the APG-73 to get a bunch of angry MiG flyers ;)

 

I was thinking of the new radar APG79(lol Vipereagle beat me too it)

[leafer]

It was a no brianer for me as soon as I saw the word 'Harrier'. I didn't even bother to see what the Harrier is pitched against and had to scroll back up to see you didn't put Harrier VS Your mama.

 

:D

[Alfa]

Not quite.....

 

Yes quite.....

 

The Block II Super Hornet radar is the Raytheon AN/APG-79 AESA Radar.

 

http://www.raytheon.com/products/apg79aesa/

 

Yes but please read again what I wrote..

 

"The current "Superhornet radar" is the same as that of the F/A-18C - namely the AN/APG-73.."

 

...and compare it to this section of the Raytheon page you linked to:

 

In addition to the APG-79, Raytheon supplies the F/A-18 E/F aircraft with several other systems. Among these are the current APG-73 radar

 

;) .

 

I am fully aware of the APG-79 AESA set, but this is still in early stages of induction :) . There is also an electronically scanned phased array version of the Zhuk radar(not an AESA though) currently installed on the Su-27KUB prototype - a smaller version of this is an option for the MiG-29K as well.

 

But if we return to the subject of this thread(candidates for simulation), I think finding enough documentation for a proper representation of the APG-73 and N010, the exact nature of their operating modes and how this is displayed to the pilot would be enough of a challenge as it is :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[SUBS17]

Basically the only way you could do this is base it on the F-16s and adapt it from there. Same goes for the Hornet, you could debate the idea of using an F-16s radar but then the possibility of creating a flyable Hornet might be too difficult any other way without the information.

[Pilotasso]

WOW, most voted poll I ever made. THX guys.

 

Looks like someone wants F-18 BAD.

 

But my trusty Falcon bytes the dust... :bye_3:

 

Bittersweet symphony.

[ViperEagle]

Sorry Alfa, I didnt mean to come off as snarky. I just reacted that way because by what I have also heard, some of the AESA radar equipped Hornets are about to enter the fleet with VFA-213. I didnt mean to come off as high handed or some such.

[Alfa]

Sorry Alfa, I didnt mean to come off as snarky. I just reacted that way because by what I have also heard, some of the AESA radar equipped Hornets are about to enter the fleet with VFA-213. I didnt mean to come off as high handed or some such.

 

I didn't percieve it as such ViperEagle and I apologize if my reply came across a little "snippy" :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Wannabee]

I would really really love to see a 2 seat sim, and thats why I voted for the 15E option.

[Ukr_Alex]

I crave a Mig-27 or a Su-24 sim.

 

We need one so bad!

 

A fast bomber sim.