streakeagle

Nice looking plane! I am surprised to see a delta for a carrier aircraft though, especially without a canard. That makes me wonder about the aircraft's angle of attack for landing and/or landing speed. I wish they would have succeeded in providing their own engine. Hopefully, their multimode radar ultimately makes it into production aircraft. I love to see a country able to fully develop its own front line supersonic jet fighters instead of relying on the usual suspects.

Keep in mind that look down radar capability depends on the doppler shift in the frequency of the radar return resulting from motion toward the aircraft conducting the radar search and/or tracking the target. So even the mighty F-15 radar goes blind against a low target that is flying perpendicular to its radar. The radar filters out all returns that match the frequency of ground returns. Aircraft flying parallel to the flight path of the searching aircraft generate a large frequency shift that greatly contrasts against ground returns while aircraft flying perpendicular to it have the same frequency. When the effects of ground clutter and doppler shift were first added with the release of WoI, the AI would immediately put their beam to the F-15 and instantly break their lock, making AIM-7 kills almost impossible with a pulse doppler look-down radar. TK made some changes in the patches for WoI, so now the F-15 radar and its AIM-7s are effective again. But I am sure that a target can still use the "beam" maneuver to break radar locks/dodge missiles, as I have used such to defeat F-15s while flying MiG-23s. With older radars, merely flying low blinds them completely. With newer ones, fly low and use your RWR to put your beam to the radar. If a target is aware of your radar and flys correctly, you will never maintain a lock long enough to guide an AIM-7. Of course, low altitude is very good for heat seeking missile, either. So, you are heading for a close-in, ground level gunfight unless the target pops up long enough to permit a quick missile shot. Fortunately, the AI generally stays away from the ground or collides with it. WoI was the first time I saw AI planes in the SF series use low level tactics to avoid detection and tracking, but they tended to hit the ground a lot. AI is no longer as effective at using low level and beam maneuvers, which provides a lot more missile shot opportunities.

The Soviet answer to the Ticonderoga class. Amazing ships. I am attached to the 2nd hull, Frunze, as it was the sole effective surface unit in the old board game, 2nd Fleet. "Effective" in this case meant able to go head to head with a US carrier group and survive. Its theoretical anti-aircraft capabilities are over-the-top. On paper, a VLS Aegis cruiser of the 80's and 90's cannot get any hits through those defenses and can be overwhelmed by its surface-to-surface missiles. In reality, the ability of US standoff ECM to suppress those defenses is unproven but possibly very effective, and the USSR had trouble getting the radar/fire-control systems to work correctly. Of course Aegis had its problems as well. I would be very interested in seeing how a late '80s Ticonderoga centered surface action group would have held up against a Kirov centered surface action group. I think the results would hinge upon three things: real-world weapon system reliability/functionality (versus sales brochures), ECM/ECCM effectiveness, and whether the Aegis system would be able to datalink and control its surrounding anti-air warfare assets in a wartime evironment (which really depends on the first two things, but if it works, the Aegis group becomes exponentially more effective and I don't believe the USSR had any equivalent). Since the game allows systems to work ideally or even better, good luck on rolling back the SAMs of any group with a Kirov! It was difficult to impossible in the fairly accurate Harpoon miniatures game. Much easier and safer to attack with Mk 48 torpedoes from below :)

Link works. Too bad I already have nearly all of the F-4 flight manuals including this F-4B manual. Nice to have it available online though.

:) Another future flyer!

US aircraft typically have air-to-air range scales in miles such as 5/10/25/50/100/200 -- F-4 series Some aircraft have a minimum range scale of 10. Their ground mapping modes usually have 2 to 4 scales in miles, something like 10/20/40. Attack aircraft radars with no air-to-air capability usually have two modes: ground mapping and collision avoidance. Multimode radars usually have: 1. either boresight or autoacquire modes 2. search (range-while-search) 3. track 4. later airacraft may have TWA (track while scan) 5. ground mapping 6. many have a collision avoidance mode The F-14 has a completely unique radar that gets its own dll file defining its special displays and functionality. You can find some detailed descriptions of radar functionality using the online help guide at Third Wire Productions.

As long as NZ doesn't mind waiting for help, why waste money on airplanes? That's what its leaders already figured out. If any real threat appears, surely the larger Western nations can bear the cost and defend NZ, probably at no charge. The USA (and to a lesser extent Japan and Australia) will do everything within their economic and political constraints to stop any hostile expansion in the Pacific, be it from China or anywhere else. 12 planes are not going to turn the tide against anyone capable of launching an attack on NZ, so why even bother? If NZ were like the UK in the early 1940s facing the Nazis almost entirely alone, then I could see trying to buy as many airframes as its economy could support. But in this day and age, the USA and/or NATO are playing world police. If NZ is going to spend any money on any kind of "combat" aircraft, shouldn't they be long range patrol types (i.e. P-3 Orion family) to try to identify potential threats and pass on intel to militarily stronger nations? Of course, help from the USA usually comes with a few strings attached, like the right to bring the very nuclear powered ships that would be saving NZ into NZ ports. So, my final answer per the discussion is that NZ should choose what it already has chosen: allow other nations to provide for its defense. That is the cheapest solution and in the absence of any real war, the absolute best solution to government spending issues.

Miniatures met their preorder limit, just waiting for them to get "printed" and shipped :) I made a spreadsheet that completely eliminates all laminated charts, which helps speed up gameplay. Ordered the materials I need to make "3d" stands: telescoping inspection mirrors (6"-36") and magnetic adapters that will allow me to easily swap airplanes. I have introduced my 10-year-old nephew to the game, so I may actually have someone to play against face-to-face!

There is a reason there are lots of WW2 games, several modern ones and almost no Vietnam era games. WW2 games = simple cockpits/weapons/avionics (note how few if any WW2 games model aircraft with radar, especially night fighters but even bombers like TBF/TBM never have radar). Modern aircraft have digital displays. Jane's USNF/FA and Jane's IAF/USAF used digital displays even for older aircraft. Modeling complex early avionics with analog displays requires more effort than its worth. As "lite" as the SF series appears to be, the appearance of the F-4 radar is a masterpiece. It looks like the real displays under ideal conditions with a skilled operating dialing in the gain controls. The WW2 market has been the goldmine of flight sims. Korean War aircraft are really just extensions of WW2 technology: barely supersonic (really high transonic) and radar scarcely more common or capable than WW2 radar. When I see the F-86 gunsight modeled as well as it is in MiG Alley, then I will know how realistic this sim is going to be. I would be majorly surprised if World of Planes ever covers the Vietnam era, especially the radar interceptors like the F-4 and later MiG-21s. F-100s are really just supersonic Korean War era aircraft. I could see those making it into World of Planes. But does the World of Planes flight engine even support supersonic flight modeling? World War 2 flight sims seldom make good starting points for supersonic jet flight. FSX is wide open and can become whatever the market desires. The DCS series is kind of like FSX with the addition of air combat systems modeling. Given a choice between DCS' limited planeset and FSX, which do you think would sell better if FSX rivaled the DCS systems modeling and remains wide open to modding with the added bonus of multiplayer support? I don't know that the networking code is very conducive to whatever gets added on to support combat in FSX, but I suspect it is at least adequate. But I agree that it is a longshot, as it is a major investment risk to perform the programming at a level that customers are willing to buy and use. But I have more faith in this FSX combat project becoming a reality than Fighter Ops or Jet Thunder. Who knows? I already have FSX and have nothing to lose either way other than the stress of waiting/not knowing. I like the sound of this: I didn't have enough faith to preorder, but after I see reviews on this, I will get the Superbug and the TacPack to send the message that I want more. I hope they not only get this out on the market, but follow their plan of providing a free SDK to other developers, especially Accusim. Of course, Accusim might be the type to develop their own code in the face of competition, especially since their modeling standards are exceptionally high.

They don't go into much detail about the damage to the B-52. Was it very light damage? Or did it abort its mission and limp back to base? The HARM is not much use if it can't take down an aircraft with a direct hit on the tail. But it may be simply a matter of selecting the right warhead for the mission as I don't see why it couldn't have a warhead as effective as a Sparrow, but it might also need the fusing of the Sparrow to work against aircraft. The effectiveness of a warhead against an aircraft is definitely affected by the timing of its detonation.

Why is it that by the time you apply the rules, it reads like a bad Hollywood German accent? Ve Hav vays of making you talk!

The store still overs SF products. IIRC, the official policy when you buy the download is something like 3 downloads within 30 or 90 days? After that, they are just being nice if they give you access to another download opportunity. But I am pretty sure they are going to want a customer to be happy regardless of the official policy. Never hurts to ask. I have backup DVD copies of all my SF downloads, both payware and freeware, including all of the RAZBAM SF aircraft (never bought the terrains).

All great stuff that is suddenly far more useful than it once was :)

There is a huge limitation of air-to-air ARMs compared to air-to-surface ARMs: what happens when the target shuts down? A stationary SAM site has already revealed its position, so the missile can try to fly to the last known location of the target. It is much harder to hit a 500 mph target if it is no longer being tracked. AWACs is the only practical target for such a missile. I don't know how easy it would be for AWACs to detect such a threat and momentarily cease radar transmissions. I could see a formation of fighters being decimated the first time such a weapon is used. Imagine 4 or more F-15/F-16s charging toward a thread radars blazing. At what point would they realize that the missiles that are inbound are seeking their radars? In an all-out war, US fighters would probably be using LPI pulses anyway (low-probability of intercept). Such radar is difficult to detect with RWR much less use for missile homing. The airplane radar/stealth/ecm game is starting to sound a lot more like the sub/sonar game.

That paint scheme really brings out the "fighter" in the F-4E. Camo with a shark mouth is classic, but looks more like a mud mover than a dogfighter. Excellent work :)

For me, TK is steadily heading the opposite direction of what I want. Given a choice between detail and scope, I prefer scope. A full globe with no walls. Initially, the globe would be pretty empty: all flat open ocean at sea level. With each official release, the appropriate area would be filled in. While modders fill in whatever they like. Of course, when official terrain overlaps modder modules, the end user can decide to overwrite the official terrain with third party terrain, just like aircraft mods. Using Google Maps, I bet modders would have a global terrain comparable to the early revisions of X-Plane in just a few years (or maybe even months if the terrain tools worked well). Instead, the terrain is becoming more and more like an FPS. Try flying a jet in the OFP/ArmA series. Lots of cool details that usually can't be seen except at very short ranges and you reach the edge of the island maps very quickly. Small maps are needed for the much slower/lower flying helos, but jets need some room. TK's trick of scaling nm to km helped him fit the geography necessary for historical conflicts into a much smaller package and overcome the absence of in-flight refueling, but I have never liked it. Now the maps are even smaller. While I am not optimistic, I am still hopeful that third parties will succeed in making MS FSX into a reasonable combat flight simulator. FSX is even more open to modding than the SF series and is capable of being much more realistic, yet retains the option to dumb down the difficulty to a "lite" sim. I am excited by the possibility of flying an Accusim F-4 or F-104 mated with an air combat expansion module covering the radar, rwr, ecm, and weapons. Of course, all of the WW2 aircraft would work as well or better. As long as the weapons/avionics/damage models are comparable if not superior to the SF series, I would be extremely with this setup. But it appears to be wishful thinking. I haven't seen any news from either of the two companies supposedly adding air combat to FSX. So for the duration, the only useful option I have for F-4 era combat is the SF series. But aside from the new approach to terrain, the view range has decreased and the clouds have too many restrictions on them. I am really tempted to abandon SF2 and go back to SF1 to regain multiplayer. But to the best of my knowledge, there are only 3 left of the long term core online group and my free time/schedule hasn't really improved much since the time I was forced to abandon multiplayer. If the overall attitude of customers towards SF2:NA is as bad as the forums make it out to be, TK will finally move onto something else anyway.

Jason was a real good guy with gogamer.com before he left it for 777 Studios. He always provided a lot of feedback at SimHq as well... about the industry in general as well as the games he was selling. I was surprised to see his comment and have no idea what he was thinking when he made it. I doubt it will affect their core business, but he has certainly lost the respect I had for him and his opinions.

As for AIMVAL/ACEVAL and large expensive fighters versus small cheap fighters, read "Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs". Interesting pilot anecdotes are sprinkled throughout this otherwise non-technical unit history. Some of the "Red Eagles" are F-14 pilots who were Top Gun graduates. Overall, the book reads more like a soap opera going into details about personal issues, but there are plenty of insights into MiG capabilities and how they compared with contemporary US fighters to make it worth the read. One conclusion that can be drawn from the MiG pilot experiences in this book is that F-14/F-15 fighters flown by well trained pilots who aren't hampered by safety rules of exercises will decimate MiG formations before ever being seen (much as F-22s claim to be able to do the same to F-14s/F-15s!). But it also makes it clear that if you are going to get into close range dogfights that F-16s are the way to go. The combination of a much smaller size, superior thrust/weight, and exceptional turn performance made the F-16 very difficult to beat if the the pilot made no major mistakes. I think history shows that a balance of F-14/F-15 size aircraft supporting F-16/F-18 sized aircraft is a better solution than exclusively flying one type or the other. Having the right plane for the right job is much better than trying to make one plane do every job.

Comparing the ThrustMaster MFDs to the CH equivalent, http://www.chproducts.com/retail/mfp.html , I must say ThrustMaster has the much better deal if you are replicating the standard MFD frame. As I have the Warthog, they would make even more sense for me. However, as I am about to travel to Pensacola in mid-April and get the photos and measurements I need to replicate aspects of the F-4 cockpit, MFD frames are not what I need. I could make a CH panel work for what I want, but more than likely I will mount real knobs and switches to a faux main panel and interface them through some sort of crazy keyboard mod or third party generic USB input card. But making a control panel is the lowest priority. First, I want to build a semi-scale Martin Baker Mk 7 seat and the left side console to mount a throttle. Then I need to arrange them around my F-4 B-8 stick and rudder pedals along with a large monitor. If I had the money and a PC able to drive it, I would get a 30" 2560x1600 LCD. For now, I will settle for a 24" 1920x1200 LCD already in my possession.

SF2 games don't support multiplayer, so you won't find anyone on teamspeak for those games. At one time you could find people flying SFP1/WoV/WoE and for a bit even some WoI guys on teamspeak, but those days are long gone.

I remember when that song was on the radio as often as Lady Gaga is now

Here is a similar chart that compares the F-4C/D, slatted F-4E, and F-15A/C. I had to switch from KCAS to Mach to match the F-15 charts. One nice thing about using Mach is that you can see where the F-4E's slats become dead weight -- near the sound barrier. The weights are all similar, but the F-4s only have AIM-7s while the F-15 adds AIM-9s and a centerline pylon (useful data considering the F-15 almost always flies with its centerline tank). My only other choice was a clean F-15, and that would not have been anywhere near fair to compare. The F-15 uses two main changes to beat the F-4: thrust:weight and wing area. The F-15's wing is optimized to permit Mach 2+ speeds and does not have slats, so its lift curve is only marginally better than the F-4, but its wing area means a lower wing loading and less drag for the same amount of lift. With AIM-9s and the centerline pylon, the F-15 is a bit slower than the F-4D. If the F-4s were tagged with the same ordnance (a typical air-to-air loadout), their top speeds would be lower, too. I don't have equivalent charts for the F-14 or F-18. The Navy didn't have sustained turn charts in their flight manuals, just V-n diagrams that allowed you to determine the max instantaneous load. In the case of the F-18, you actually have to cross reference the weight with the degrees of bank (g load) to get the stall speed, and there are only a few banks to pick from up to 60 degrees. I may have the F-16A data laying around somewhere. If I find it, I will make another overlay to show how it runs rings around them all.

Here is a nifty chart I made by overlaying the USAF F-4 turn rate charts for the F-4D, F-4E, and the F-4E scaled to match the weight of the F-4D. The black lines are the F-4D, the dark orange lines are the heavy F-4E, and the blue lines are the lightweight F-4E (same weight as F-4D). Up to low transonic mach numbers and up to medium altitudes, the F-4E is about 7% better than the F-4D (15% better with the same weight). At higher mach numbers, the F-4 doesn't have to pull as much AoA to get the same lift, so the slats actually cause a drag penalty that allows the F-4D to perform better. For reference, the F-14 is known to turn about 20% better than the unslatted F-4J. So, if the slats made the F-4S turn about 15% better, sustained turn rates would almost be pretty close between the F-14 and F-4S. The F-4E, being heavier, would still be significantly under the F-14. However, with numbers this close, pilot quality is everything rather than precise performance figures. Note: After countless reviews/edits, the turn rate varies with (n^2 - 1)^0.5, which is not quite linear. So my linear shift of the turn rate is off by a bit at lower loads and almost dead on at higher loads: i.e. if the load was 2g, and the shift is weight decreases by 10%, the turn rate would increase by 13% rather than my shift of 10%. At 8g, the actual shift would be very close to 10%. So my original graph underestimates the gain at lower loads and is almost dead on at higher loads, hence I am reposting my original graph and my original text.

One item that seldom gets mentioned when looking at slats versus hard wing performance: the F-4E gained some serious weight with the addition of the gun and an extra fuel tank to the rear to counterbalance the gun weight in the nose. So, when you look at the performance charts of the slatted F-4E versus the hard wing F-4D, it doesn't look like the slats helped that much and it looks like the F-4E suddenly had a lower max g load compared to earlier F-4s. But if you rectify the comparison to equal weights, not only does the load limit become equal, but you see the true gain of the slats. Since the F-4S only suffers the weight/drag penalty of the slats and not the guns installation, It would be nice if the F-4J and F-4S manuals had the same sustained performance charts as the USAF F-4 manuals to get a true apples-to-apples comparison. The best comparison would be an early unslatted F-4E manual so that the only variable would be the slats with no other weight/drag changes. My manual is a late 70s manual after all F-4Es were slatted.

Anyone who hung out at SimHQ when SFP1 was originally released will know who Andy Bush is: F-104/F-4 pilot that helped develop the game. Anyone who follows F-105s will know who Ed Rasimus is: F-105 pilot and author. Check out this discussion: http://www.aviationbanter.com/archive/index.php/t-9918.html My favorite quote is the perfect end to an ages old argument about the F-8 Crusader versus the F-4 Phantom by John Carrier, a pilot who transitioned from flying F-8s to flying F-4s: But a more important part of the discussion is what the leading edge slats did for F-4s. Slats were added to solve the safety issues with pulling high-AoA. The side benefit was better instantaneous and sustained turn performance (which happens at high AoA). However, they also came with a penalty. At lower AoA, slats cause extra drag. This drag effects specific excess power, which in turn affects top speed, level acceleration, and sustained climb performance. In other words, hard winged F-4s could go faster, accelerate quicker, and climb better unloaded. But if you were pulling hard g, the slatted F-4s induced much less drag and therefore performed significantly better in high pitch/turn rate situations. The accident rate of hard wing F-4s ensured that slats were preferable, but a highly skilled energy fighter might actually do better if he could keep the fight away from extended hard turns and not depart controlled flight. As modeled in the SF series, the slats make dogfighting much easier. I kill MiGs much quicker in the slatted F-4E/F-4F Phantoms much more quickly than any other variant even using just missiles. But I find it much more fun/challenging to take on agile MiGs in hard wing gunless F-4s, F-104s, and F-105s :)