streakeagle

You can be sure TK will draw the line at the early 80s (maybe as late as 85 or 86?). You can also be sure that the variant you want or expect of the cockpit won't match the documentation TK used. The RN/RAF F-4s have some cockpit issues because the documentation TK used didn't show what was commonly used. So some critical indications for F-4 operation were missing such as AoA indicator and AoA indexers needed for flying safely/landing correctly. But, as long as it is as well done as all the other DLC aircraft, I wouldn't worry too much. TK will certainly fix any major issues and most minor ones.

The problem with coming to the SF2 party late is that you have to start at the current patch level. If you had bought the original version and saved it, you could patch it up to whatever level torqued your twinkie. I can't remember all the dates, but there were several key turning points in the patches such as: Lods no longer compatible with SFP1/WoX series (with WoI Expansion pack you can put a lot of SF2 stuff back into WoI, useful for SF2 eyecandy while retaining SF1 features such as multiplayer). Lock down on lod data (lods could read in a hex editor to find node names). Lock down on clouds/environment. Lock down on view distance addition of new fading system. Compatibility with certain mods varies throughout the patch run. AI, campaign, and other bugs come and go with various patch levels. Unless you have some need for one of the lost features or you are dead set against the latest bugs/features, none of this really presents a problem. You didn't experience all the ups and downs, so you won't know what you missed. In going from SFP1/WoX to current revision of SF2, you will mainly see tremendous upgrades to nearly every aspect of the sim except for the terrain, and arguably, SF2NA has set the ball in motion to fix that issue. The only reasons to stay with SFP1/WoX would be older hardware/operating system unable to handle DX10 and the load SF2 puts on a single core PC. I found upgrading to Win 7 and having a good DX10 card left my cpu as the only bottleneck and could still play SF2NA, though a bit choppy even with some settings dialed back more than I would like (mirrors, horizon distance, and shadows). Get one SF2 sim (either your favorite environment or the cheapest one) and see how it runs on your PC. It doesn't cost much to try one of them. If it runs okay on your pc, I doubt you will ever go back to SFP1/WoX.

For a lot of supersonic jet aircraft, the optimum altitude is 11 km or 36,000 feet... which is where the atmosphere temperature stabilizes until you go insanely higher. However, aircraft performance may also be limited by heating effects that are reduced by going higher to reduce air density. The F-15 is an aircraft whose performance increases up to about 45,000 feet. Because the game flight model may not reflect reality, and in fact has some artificial limits to keep players from exceeding published performance due to limits not modeled in the game, the only way to be sure is to perform flight testing. To save time, you can save a mission that starts in the air and edit the start altitude, speed, and fuel weight (i.e. full or 1/2 are the standards) to find the limits more quickly. I would start with 5,000 foot samples (i.e. sea level, 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet, etc.) Ideally, performance will fall off as you exceed 36,000 feet (or approach the aircraft's ceiling). But due to the design of the stock flight models and/or flight engine limitations, you may find some aircraft achieve max speed at their ceiling. Once you see the speed drop off, you can 1/2 your way in between sample points, until you get an answer to the level of precision you want. A long time ago, I had released a tool that could plot the 1g flight performance for the aircraft based on reading the flight model data from the aircraft's data ini file. But a major bug had cropped up in the final release that I never tracked down and the game has changed quite a bit since then, so it wouldn't necessarily interpret the current data ini files correctly (not to mention the fact that it can't read unicode, the encoding format of SF2 text files). I did develop a program capable of reading the unicode files, but lack the time and motivation to make an updated version of AIDE.

Was the Jane's F-15E or F/A-18E any less well modeled than the DCS A-10C in terms of avionics? SF2's simplicity means under the skin is it little different than Jane's Fighters Anthology or Jane's USAF, just better modeled 3d cockpits. An updated Jane's Fighters Anthology is exactly the market SFP1 appeared to be targeting... but without the mission editor, crippled multiplayer, and as of SF2 no multiplayer. Jane's FA had some whacked stock flight models (UFO F-16). The 714th libs and other free downloads damn near made it a decent sim. Primarily the dated repulsive graphics are what makes it inferior to Jane's USAF and the SF series. The simpler flight modeling was actually easier to tune to match real world performance charts because it was based on performance charts rather than NASA quality aerodynamic equations. The framework for SF2 favors a LOMAC/FC level game with good cockpits, moderately detailed avionics, and even better physics. But that simply is not the niche TK wants to target even though the pendulum has been swinging that way for much of SFP1's development. I have the flight manuals for most major US aircraft and some for USSR (including the MiG-21bis in both English and Russian language). I look forward to becoming proficient in all of them. I was never the market TK was aiming for. SFP1 was the only game in town beyond the abandoned Jane's games. DCS is almost dead on what I want and hopefully will be exactly what I want within a few years of expansion. People said it couldn't be done, but DCS is both a study sim and a survey sim. The total cost is high, but that is the price you pay to have it all. Will the market bear the price? I think FSX answers that question.

TK's projects are his sole means of support. $13,000 sounds like a lot for a two or 3 week campaign, but if you subtract out the costs it is going to cover, what does he have left to buy food, pay utilities and rent? So, I am assuming that he has a full time job and does this in his spare time. $13,000 is a fraction of what a skilled programmer/artist makes in the US in a year... and that was from only 300 contributors with one person donating $1,000. He has yet to deliver a finished project, and how many more are going to buy it after it is released? Multiplayer in the big leagues often gets deleted (B-17) or dumbed down (Halo) to keep costs in check (and Halo was a blockbuster title). So TK isn't understating the costs of multiplayer when using Western labor. It would cost TK a lot of time to learn to net code correctly. However, both Aces High (a very small programming team not much larger than Third Wire) and Bohemia developed their own networking code. But their products focus on multiplayer gameplay and would fail without it. To be fair, Bohemia started out using DirectPlay, but was forced to create their own code due to the poor performance of DirectPlay. I bet $50 that this guy is going to give me the MiG-21bis I want. Based on the fact that he already had a decent mod for FC2, I think it is a very safe bet.

As I have the Warthog stick... my stick mapping is exactly as it should be. It is quite a load to remember all of the combinations possible with SOI/short/long modifiers to button functions. I printed out the manual pages 86-93 to help out. But there are key functions I use all the time that are nearly 100% instinctive. However, I still end up pushing a button wanting the function of another SOI and screw things up. In the instant action missions, the steerpoint automatically advances to the next waypoint as I am passing over the current one. This breaks my laser designation, too. I am having trouble figuring out how to disable the auto next waypoint and/or preventing the TGP from following the shift in waypoint. I personally prefer cycling the waypoint manually when I am using waypoints for the SPI.

The way I am doing Mavericks is to leave the target gate at boresight with the MAV as SOI, zoom in on HUD, center the target in the gate, then use the TMS Forward Short to trigger Maverick "Track". While it is not quite as easy as SF2 (i.e. automatically cycle between targets using a single key), it isn't much harder as long as you can clearly see the target in the HUD. I am getting nearly 100% hits as long as I fire within envelope. Trying to steer the cursor around with the little slew joystick is a pain in the butt. I move to far, then it tries to track when I want to slew it back. So, the other way I have targeted successfully was using the HUD to place the SPI and verifying it with the TGP at long range before switching to Maverick and using the TMS Forward Short to track the slaved SPI. But the first way works much better for small vehicles while the HUD/TGP handoff way works for targeting larger objects like storage and buildings. GBU-38 IAM are a breeze to use to drop bridges. I can get the job done with just one, but there is plenty of time to drop two and that virtually guarantees obliteration. There is obviously a much steeper learning curve than SF2, but if you have the right buttons available on your HOTAS and learn the "shortcuts", it really doesn't have to be any harder than SF2 even with full difficulty/realism. The hardest part is finding/tracking targets which is the part that is completely simplified/automated in SF2. But the instant action and training missions almost make that as easy as SF2... just a matter of mission design with good waypoints to guide the beginner. It is working very well for me.

Being stuck in the LOMAC terrain is not too different from the original SFP1 being stuck in the desert. Until modders (and TK) caught up to provide Vietnam and Israel, I ignored the terrain and focused on the combat. I just did some work ups in free flight to get a handle on weapons. I can CCIP/CCRP bombs (took out a big bridge). I can use Mavericks (took out big storage tanks at some kind of plant or storage facility).

I just put in a few hours in the A-10C doing ramp starts, take-offs, and landings. Challenging, fun and not too hard at all. Now I am fairly proficient at flying, next up is mastering weapons delivery.

DCS let's you play the way you want. Instant action can give you the same gameplay that SF provides, but with better graphics, physics, and more detailed weapons systems. Just like SF, you can start in the air or on the runway ready to rock-n-roll. But it has one more option that SF doesn't: the full ramp start for those that are interested. I haven't tried the Game mode controls, only Sim mode controls... but I was able to fly and fight without ever following a ramp start procedure. However, having finally mastered the A-10C ramp start, it doesn't take that long and makes take off a lot more interesting than starting at the end of the runway and slamming the throttle forward. DCS is an option for gamers, but it is the only choice for people that want both FSX procedural detail and combat. As far as work versus gameplay goes... I feel the same way about Dangerous Waters. I periodically play through the missions of DW to maintain technical/tactical proficiency, but having done 6.5 years at sea on submarines standing long boring sonar watches for mediocre pay, I have little interest in doing so for no pay... unless the fight gets going quickly. I loved the trainers where we were air dropped into difficult situations and had to fight our way out with good sonar work, smart maneuvering, and effective weapons employment. A good DW mission gives me that same challenge/fun. But I can really do without hours of endless searching listening to white noise and biologics. I love the fidelity of DW and wouldn't want it any other way, but because it is so realistic, I don't play it that often. The graphics and flight model are so interesting in DCS, that it is a joy just to takeoff, fly a few minutes out, then turn around and land. I find it equally fun to fly the A-10, Ka-50, or P-51D. In SF, the game engine is set up to make it almost automatic to takeoff and land without any risk of crashing. Even on full difficulty, I and land/takeoff just about anywhere. In DCS, if I go off the runway, I can sink in the soft ground and get stuck. The aircraft can easily be damaged/destroyed by landing too hard. No sim is perfect, but right now, DCS is a much better fit for what I have wanted all along and over the near term it is only going to keep getting better.

Okay, this video sets the standard for what an air burst effect should look like. Effects modders, get hot!

An absolutely amazing achievement that very few appreciate today. People vote for themselves, not the future beyond their own lifetime. I doubt the United States will ever devote the resources toward technology breakthroughs the way it did during the Cold War. The moon landing may be the high point of US history. Instead of going where no man has gone before, US citizens just want internet access and free health care. Maybe China or India will pick up the torch and go further as they transcend into being the next military and economic world superpowers. Of course, the only reason our aerospace industry beat out everyone else is that our captured Nazi scientists were better than their captured Nazi scientists Funny how being able to design rockets gave a bunch of people a free pass on their wartime behavior.

1. It doesn't take a $5000 PC to run DCS. With settings maxed out, my new $1500 PC averages 45-55 fps and if I knock down the FSAA a bit I get 60+ fps locked down by vsync. 2. With the same PC and max settings, SF2NA runs at 30 fps over Iceland and falls to 20 fps at times. With FSAA adjusted a bit, I get 30-40 fps over Iceland. Over water or in the older sims, max settings will let me exceed vsync 60 fps. The terrain in DCS has lower resolution than Iceland (hence the 30 fps in SF2NA), but looks better because they paid someone like Stary to make it look as good or better than SF terrain looks after Starry gets a hold of it. 3. I haven't learned ANY of the complex controls, yet I am having a blast flying the P-51D, Ka-50, and Su-25T using runway starts to skip all the ramp start procedures. I have the setting on full difficulty/realism with the exception of permitting external views. The instant action P-51D vs P-51D and Su-25T vs A-10C are both more fun and more challenging than SF series dogfights -- the AI is equally proficient at energy and turn fighting and switches as the situation requires. 4. Moddability is an issue -- but the purpose of modding is to tailor the game to suit your needs. DCS is getting very close to suiting my needs out of the box better than SF2 ever will with unlimited modding. 5. My only gripe about DCS is the unknown future. By the end of the year (hopefully sooner) I should be happily flying a MiG-21bis and only firing up SF2 to enjoy my F-4 stick while flying an F-4. As it stands, my favorite aircraft so far is the Ka-50 because the flight model is so cool. Best helo I ever flew on a PC. I just got Take On Helicopters and there is simply no comparison. TOH is barely better than ArmA2 helos in terms of the flight models. I also like the P-51D a lot more than I thought I would -- its ground handling and FM is stunning too. The A-10C, aside from all the new buttons, isn't that big a jump from the FC2 A-10A, which isn't that much different from the SF2E A-10A, so until I learn to use the buttons, it is the least interesting for me to fly. TK doesn't want to consider SF2 and LOMAC/FC/DCS to be competitors, but I WAS one of the biggest SF supporters. The combination of SF2's direction and DCS's direction has easily brought my SF2 time down to mere minutes over the past couple of weeks after years of having an hour or more of SF2 nearly every night. DCS runs better, looks better, plays better, and may explode in growth/variety of what can be simulated without needing me to waste even one minute modding it.

While it is easy to break the landing gear, I can easily fly where I want and land where I want with a little patience as I learn the sensitivity and the rate at which I can transition to a low hover from a high cruise. The FM is far more stable/smooth than OFP/ArmA but the basic maneuvers I can use to slow down and hover/land over a particular spot remain similar. I haven't even begun to learn how to do a ramp start or even use any weapons. My experience in OFP/ArmA is that I actually have more fun doing transport missions trying to land and lift people out of hot spots. I personally would prefer a Huey or Cobra, but clearly this is one awesome helicopter and a great choice for a combat sim. I am downloading the Take On Helicopters / Hind bundle tonight (bought it earlier today on steam). I suspect the Ka-50 FM will be far superior, but Take On Helicopters' FM better be superior to ArmA 2, or what is the point? I find the Hind more appealing than the Black Shark simply because it is legendary and the proper opponent of the AH-1. I will probably try to master one aspect of the Ka-50 per week while I continue to mainly fly jets. Once I can fly a full mission from ramp start to landing, I think I will really enjoy the Ka-50. I am not going online in any DCS aircraft until I get proficient with at least one of them. I think I can master the A-10C faster and given that I am using a Warthog stick, it comes more natural when learning the full operation of the aircraft.

Got link from SimHQ to this news from Eagle Dynamics: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1327908 Overall, I like the plan even if I don't yet have a PC that can run their stuff. Now if they can just follow through reasonably close or even do better than the road map. What is the "legendary" aircraft for DCS? Fixed wing or rotary? I can only think of a few that qualify and fit in the sim: MiG-21? MiG-23? Mi-24 Hind? Can it be USA? F-4? AH-1? UH-1? F-16 and F-18 are still very current and the F-18 is the most likely next US fixed wing aircraft mentioned. I would bet on a Hind or MiG-21 given that this sim IS Russian, but due to marketing considerations, I could see a "legendary" US helo or jet being added. If it was an F-4, I suspect I still have plenty of time to save up for a new PC. Just did a quick search and it seems "flying legends" could be an aircraft from any period and is possibly a P-51 Mustang or similar aircraft. Just what I need... another P-51 simulator. Possibly the most simulated aircraft in all of flight sim history along with the F4U, and Bf109.

AIM-7 performance versus firing parameters varies widely among models and patch levels in SFP1/SF2. Typically the AIM-7E works very well at long ranges, especially against head-on non-maneuvering targets, but can handle beam shots to some extent. The AIM-7E2 is not so good at long ranges, but is a great dogfight missile able to handle maneuvering targets, but it doesn't handle beam shots well at all. I don't have nearly as much time firing AIM-7Fs and AIM-7Ms, as I usually fly before they existed. But I have some F-15 time and usually get 50-75% reliability out of them if they don't get chaffed. The effectiveness of decoys has been a problem over the years. Some patch revisions, missiles missed every time chaff was released. Other patch revisions, chaff is ignored completely. If you are having trouble with AIM-7s, you are probably flying in later years against opponents with chaff and jammers. In the Vietnam era, I do much better with the AIM-7 than the AIM-9 unless the AIM-9G/H is available. In which case I save the AIM-7s for long range or head-on shots and the AIM-9s for close in.

I have read all of their statements... but ED has been a little shifty over the years as they shifted from making the Black Shark an addon to FC to creating an entirely new game approach that is still being flushed out. Marketing hype means nothing to me. When I have a product in my hand, I don't care whether it is labeled "DCS" or not: what does it actually do, does it meet my needs, and was it worth the price. The MiG-21bis is the focus of my interest, now how long do I have to wait for a release?

The Su-25T is "DCS" but is still modeled on a LOMAC/FC level. Of course the Su-25T has the AFM (advanced flight model) and to the best of my knowledge, none of the third party releases will have that yet. So, the MiG-21bis can be called the "DCS MiG-21bis" but still have a flight model at the LOMAC/FC level and possibly not even have a clickable pit. The Su-25T is really nice, but lacks little things like toe brakes--you just press a single key to apply wheel brakes. I would rather have low expectations and be pleasantly surprised, than expect perfection and be greatly disappointed. I went ahead and pre-purchased at the $50 level, though. People are complaining about $40 addon planes like the P-51D. But if you give me a plane I want to the level of detail the A-10C and P-51D are modeled, $40-$50 is plenty fair to me as each plane is the equivalent of buying another study sim like Falcon 4.0, DCS A-10C, Jane's F/A-18, etc. Of course, at that kind of price, I won't buy every addon that comes down the line compared to the much cheaper Third Wire DLC products where I bought everything to support the future growth of the game. I essentially want DCS World with the planeset of the SF2 series, and it looks like it will be even better as TK refused to provide flyable MiGs or proper avionics dlls to support 3rd party versions. 2 or 3 years from now, I may have a DCS library covering the F-4, F-104, MiG-21, F-15, A-10, P-51. There will even be some aircraft I want from the same time frame that Third Wire would never even do such as the T-38. Of course, the market could collapse and almost none of this will ever come to be a reality. But even then, as long as FC3 and MiG-21bis makes it into DCS World before then, I will have a sim with the MiG-21, MiG-29, Su-25, Su-27, F-15, A-10, Ka-50, and P-51. That's pretty much on the level of Jane's USAF, which along with Fighters Anthology are the sims that set the benchmark for what I want. As an added bonus, I think DCS is becoming what people looked forward to in Fighter Ops. Nevada terrain plus T-38, F-15, A-10 detailed well enough to follow real life procedures and training. Fighter Ops isn't vaporware, it just ended up being done by a different company and being named DCS :)

I am not talking about a tool that moves files in and out of folders. It needs to read a list of changes and apply them to stock files. 1. Determine stock files to be changed. 2. Extract them. 3. Read and apply change list to stock files such as adding and removing lines of ini files. 4. Place final files in correct folders. Can JSGME do that for SF2? The term "Generic" tells me it probably can't extract files from SF2 cat files. With the way SF2 already works, I can keep mods in folders on the side, paste them into the user folders with a single copy/paste command or revert back to stock by deleting the entire folder in question and allowing the sim to rebuild it from scratch the next time the game starts.

If you follow the < 2 nm and low g target rule (preferably firing from slightly below the target at altitudes > 2-3,000 feet, you can get a pretty good ratio even with the AIM-9B (though you need to add one more rule to help the seeker: target in afterburner). The only time I couldn't get good performance out of missiles no matter what I did was the original release of WoI, where the MiGs instantly put their beam to doppler radars and easily broke lockons. The MiGs also stayed fairly low to the ground making both AIM-9 and AIM-7 shots difficult. This gave me results comparable to reality and in the case of F-15s with doppler radars, even worse than reality with almost 0% AIM-7 hits. Of course, TK quickly made a patch that made the AI far less likely to succeed in breaking lock and the F-15 returned to being a sniper with AIM-7s. I really enjoyed that original WoI release: the most challenging version TK ever published. If you count unreleased beta versions, I believe the title of most challenging goes to First Eagles. The Spad was somewhat unstable in pitch and would depart wildly if you didn't use a precise light touch. But the public release made the Spad more like its historical reputation: a fast stable gun platform.

But US information is generally available. I have few references on the F-105 (though the pilot manual is a really good one if you are only going to have a few), but I was aware that TK's sight was lacking. In particular, I knew for sure it was a full blown LCOS like the F-4, though the pilots complained that it was too hard to switch between ground attack and air-to-air sight modes and usually ended up leaving it in a fixed reticle mode since they were usually enroute to a ground target when bounced. I am glad you have nothing better to do than fix these things, but it would be even better if you could get TK to incorporate them into the stock game to avoid the ini conflict problems that arise with new patches/installs. I usually end up making ini edits gradually as I want/need them after each major patch/install release and lose them all to the next release before I get more than a few of them installed. I usually don't just copy/paste, but prefer to extract the originals and merge the changes into the latest ini files to avoid breaking new stuff. That approach is much too time consuming, so I end up hardly using any mods at all. What I should do is create a tool that identifies the mod files in a folder, extracts the stock files, and automatically merges the listed mod changes into the stock files, then place them in the appropriate folders. For that to work, the mod files would have to contain only the changes, but it would be a powerful way to manage ini mods after major patches/new installs. However, I can still think of situations where TK's changes would break such a tool, so I don't know if it would really be worth the effort.

Just ran the stock Operation Bolo mission and would have hit 4/4 with AIM-7E if a MiG-21 had not broke line of sight by ducking behind Thud Ridge. It feels like I am firing AIM-9Ms at non-maneuvering targets: lock, shoot, kill with no effort.

I don't know why TK doesn't bother to get stuff like this right. Crusader really shouldn't need to release these kinds of mods... But, since these mods do make the game a quite a bit more realistic, Crusader should put all his mods into a package much like the old Weapons Pack. Then again, how hard is it to find and download all of his releases with the "See user's other files" button on the download page?

Even before the patch, AIM-9Gs were always very good. The main difference between AIM-9G/H Sidewinders and AIM-9Ls is the all-aspect capability, otherwise performance is very similar. If fired within parameters (even against MiG-17s), I expect at least 50%, typically 75%, and possibly 100% success with AIM-9G/H. Even AIM-9Ds are not that bad, just slide the % down by 25: 25%/50%/75%, just a tad less maneuverble. Its the AIM-9B/E/J series that was much more challenging. The patch doesn't appear to effect the maneuverability or seeker tracking, just the reliability and/or lethality. So getting a hit with an AIM-9B against a MiG-17 is just as hard as it ever was, but if you do hit, you will probably get a kill. So the patch doesn't greatly improve the low end missiles since they have many other limitations besides reliability and lethality, but it makes missiles that were already decent into near 100% PK wonder weapons... but again only if fired within seeker and maneuverability limitations. So, in a 1972 era Vietnam dogfight such as May 10,1972 with 4xAIM-7E2 and 4xAIM-9G/Hs, I expect to get about 7+/-1 kills. When in reality, you were lucky if you got one and in the rare case of Duke, three kills in a single sortie. Of course, not even accounting for the changes from the patch, it was already normal for me to get 2-4 kills in the same situation and 7-8 was possible with patience and luck. Unlike reality, the AI sooner or later gives you the shot opportunity that was very rare in reality. Unlike reality, I can run my fuel pretty low waiting for that opportunity without any real worries. Weapon ini changes aside, multiplayer with 1:1 scale maps would create an environment with the potential to get much more realistic results. A MiG-17 pilot aware of a gunless F-4 attacking it can always deny a missile shot. An F-4 aware of a MiG-17 pilot attacking it can always deny a gun shot. So if both are aware of each other, who is going to make a mistake or be forced to turn and run due to fuel? The lack of multiplayer means the AI needs to be very complicated to produce realistic behavior that will produce historical results. The AI has come a long way, but it still isn't even close to being capable of replicating the behavior of a true ace. But the nice part about AI is that you can scale it up or down to suit your preferences. When you play online, mismatches between skill levels on both sides may be realistic, but not very entertaining for the aces or the cannon fodder. The solution is co-op play until enough of the lesser pilots catch up to the veterans. Even then, you may have one pilot so skilled/talented that the only way to balance the fight is to have everyone else on one team to fight against him. Back to the original topic: having every missile I fire hit and kill the target is not very challenging or fun. If the changes that result in that are hard coded and not made optional, then I have no use for such a game.

I seldom fly air-to-ground in any sim and have principally flown air-to-air in SFP1/SF2 all these years with a focus on flying the F-4 and MiG-21. Recently, I have spent quite a bit of time on the MiG-23. The MiG-21bis is clearly going to be modeled better than any SF2 implementation which cannot properly support Soviet avionics functions. But my concern is that it will be modeled at the LOMAC level when I would prefer it to be at the A-10C level of detail. I have read the flight manual of the MiG-21 almost as much as the F-4 in trying to refine the SF2 implementation. I would love a fully functional clickable MiG-21 cockpit. The MiG-21bis can carry 4xAA-8 and 2xAA-2, the AA-2 can even be the SARH model for NAW intercepts. While it did not have the payload, range, or avoinics, it was otherwise the Soviet equivalent to the F-16: a lightweight single engine multirole fighter. In the bis form, it is very much an air-to-air threat against F-16s that typically carried 6 or less AIM-9s. The absence of chaff, flares, and ECM are as much a problem as the endurance. Adding a belly pod with all of those things costs the centerline fuel tank which is critical to MiG-21 operations. While the MiG has many advantages over the F-4, its cockpit view is even more restrictive. Learning to fight with a limited outside view and a weak radar system will be all the more fun/challenging for me.