streakeagle

Third Wire has been unable to duplicate this bug (as with me). My gut feeling is that it is video card related, but video card experiments are much harder since it might involve trying different driver sets and at the extreme trying an alternate model and/or brand of card, so let's do some tests to look for sound related issues: Try shooting the gunpod from an external view (F5 chase view, F6, etc.) rather than from the cockpit. Does it still freeze? Sound gets processed a little differently in the different views and a change in stability with view might be an indication that it is sound related. Of course, the video clippling also changes... but it is still a useful symptom. Also, after that test, try disabling hardware acceleration for sound. Another thing to try is to set sound for simple stereo or mono rather than surround sound. If anyone can get rid of the freezing by disabling hardware acceleratin and/or surround sound, then we have our culprit. If no one benefits from either these, I am banking on some kind of video processing issue.

Is there anyone with an ATi video card that is having the gunpod freeze problem?

I am not having these problems, but many others are and I am trying to help figure out what is common between those people who are. I am thinking it is a hardware/driver issue, so please list what video card and sound card you are using as well as the version of their drivers. PS Make sure you have the latest DirectX 9, which I think was August 2008. This won't solve the problem but helps make sure everyone is testing from the same version of software.

I currently drive a blue 1980 Corvette L-82 (1995 to present) to work every day and the family car is a gold 2005 Altima 2.5S (2005 to present). I previously drove a mahogany 1980 Corvette L-82 (Jan 1993 to Sep 1993, totaled by a kid in a red Camaro that hit me head on). Before that a blue 1980 Corvette L-48 (stock engine, Jul 1991 to Sep 1991, totaled when I lost control on an exit ramp). All three Corvettes were purchased during my 8 years in the Navy (1989 to 1997). Prior to the Navy I drove a 1974 Firebird Formula 350 (in picture, 1988 to 1989, sold it after getting first Corvette) Prior to that a 1975 Firebird Espirit (not shown, I have no photos of that one, 1986 to 1988, drove it until the engine gave out and traded it in for next Firebird). In high school, I drove my parents Ford Econoline 150 van (351 Cleveland, 1984 to 1986). So, until I bought the Altima, I have never owned or regularly driven a car that wasn't a rear wheel drive American V-8 5.7 liter.

First you have to install teamspeak (and preferably test it), then you go to the teamspeak link at the top of the combat ace web page (right under the A-10). From there, you should be able to figure out where to go and what to do through trial and error. (i.e. click on a lobby, open a dialog box, choose a nickname, then join the selected lobby)

If only they had put the intake on the bottom... would have been a low powered precursor to the F-16 (much like a variant of the MiG-21).

I like Cobras too. The principal advantage the Apache had over the Cobra was its engines, and the AH-1W solved that problem. The beauty of the Huey/Cobra family was commonality, nice to see that being maintained with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z. These days cost-effectiveness is so much more important than absolute performance. I am sure the decision to go stay with the Huey/Cobra family will prove to be the best option for the Marines.

My old 19" CRT monitor at 1600x1200 is actually better than my 46" LCD TV at 1920x1080... my preferred solution would be a 2550x1600 (the best available at the consumer level) but for now I normally play on a 20" LCD monitor at 1600x1200. At 1024x768, I only got about 2/3 the detection range I get with 1600x1200. Resolution is half the battle: for a given zoom level (which is basically field of view), double the resolution to double the distance you can see one pixel. Zoom is the other half, and you can get good visual spotting distances using max zoom, but at the cost of a very narrow field of view. The 1080p LCD TV was a tradeoff: while the 1080 vertical resolution ensured I only got 90% of the range possible with 1200 vertical, it was super easy to see that 1 pixel target and identify the aspect of the target at it got closer (and bigger). The built in cheat is to use normal settings for HUD and visual targetting then use the <t> key (or others as appropriate) to locate any one target, then you can zoom on it as required to identify it and/or judge its aspect/energy state. While Track IR makes the process of zooming in/out very easy and intuitive, my solution prior to owning track IR was to have the targeting keys on a hat switch on the joystick and have the zoom in/out mapped to a rotary knob on the throttle. I was actually able to maintain situational awareness better using this method over Track IR since it is fairly easy to get disoriented with Track IR while zoomed in (i.e. not know which direction you are looking). But TrackIR is far more immersive. If people don't mind having 3d models rendered oversize to be viewable at long distances, why are TK's target boxes so bad? In fact, you can redefine the target boxes to be black spots if you want so they look like what you see in some other games at long distances and when you first aquire the target visually using the <t> key, you get an ID message telling you what type of aircraft you just acquired... which is no more cheating than having a glowing icon with the aircraft name. So if you don't like TK's choice on rendering aircraft at long distance, there are ways to work around it to get results similar to what you might experience in other games. In reality, US pilots in Vietnam had a very hard time detecting MiG-21s when they were coming head-on. 2nm (3.7km) was about the max range they could spot one... banked in a turn was another story. For comparison, when a jet airliner is contrailing at 30,000+ feet (almost 5 nm or 9.1 km), try picking out the engine nacelles on the wings. You could see the plane without contrails, though you might have to scan the sky a few times to find it after first hearing the engines. But other than the basic shape of the wings/fuselage/tail, not too many details are apparent. MiG-21s are smaller in diameter than the turbofans on airliners, from headon without any contrails, the thin wings and tail are invisible and the nose is just a speck on the windshield... while your eye may already see it at 5nm, it isn't until 2nm, the speck gets big enough to catch someone's attention without knowing it is there. While TK's implementation is annoying if you are used to the way other games do it, I find that it models reality very well: the Navy trains lookouts to perform focused visual scan patterns much the way radars sweep their beams with the same tradeoffs between search area, detection probability, and sweep time. Adding binoculars provides even longer detection ranges at the cost of longer sweep times for a given area. Some pilots with a combination of exceptional vision, excellent scan discipline, and good intuition on where to focus their search can detect targets at much greater ranges than typical pilots (look for some quotes about how far Chuck Yeager could pick out enemy fighters in WW2). TK's version (when at max zoom) seems to replicate typical detection ranges rather than the best case or worst case ones. Zoomed out

Did they adopt FGR the same way the F-18 and F-22 became the F/A-18 and F/A-22? i.e. for publicity/political reasons? Of course, the F-22 dropped the "/A" again while the Hornet has forever kept the dual designation. Those photos look great. I like the lines of the Typhoon except for the big square intakes, but I know the engines really appreciate those style of intakes... and I have no problem with sacrificing looks (in this case only a slight detriment) or even stealth for significant gains in engine performance. It is a shame it has taken so long to get this fighter in service. Hopefully, I can see on flying some time at an airshow.

Learn how to use DATCOM+ It is capable of generating very good numbers at speeds less than Mach 0.6 and greater than Mach 1.5 Stock Third Wire FMs have many aerodynamic co-efficient tables based on Mach variation with a base number and 7 multiplier values at Mach 0.4 intervals ranging from 0.0 to 2.4 Normally, Mach 0.4 is used as the reference with a value of 1.0, so if DATCOM+ will give you good data for Mach 0.4, you are off to a very good start: you will have your base co-efficients. If the aircraft is in the Mach 2 class or faster, DATCOM+ might be able to give you good data at Mach 1.6, Mach 2.0, and Mach 2.4, this would give you 4 of the 7 values you need for any one table. You can plot Mach 0.1, Mach 0.2, and Mach 0.3 with DATCOM+ so you can approximate the Mach 0.0 values (or perhaps use Mach 0.001 or lower to get a good set), then you have 5 of 7. The transonic range is tricky and for the most part DATOM+ will not handle it, so you will have to make some educated guesses (looking at existing FMs of aircraft with similar geometry for trends could allow you to fair in some useful pproximations) or get real world data if available. Building the initial DATCOM profile is a tedious, error-prone process, but once you have a valid profile that models the aircraft as well as DATCOM can model it, it will reward you will tons of data. This data is based on empirical models and is prone to errors, but will give you a starting point for a lot of numbers that you have no other way of estimating. This is a labor intensive process, but has the best chance of producing an accurate FM short of using wind tunnel testing or actual flight data. Alternatively, most FM developers start with a reasonable FM from a similar aircraft and tweak from there until they get the results they expect. Tweaking sounds easier and faster, but: 1) You still have to learn what all the numbers mean so that you know what numbers to tweak and possible side effects that may occur when any value has been tweaked. 2) The principal way to test each tweak is to fly the aircraft in-game. Despite having a lot less research involved (compared to getting the values needed to build a good DATCOM+ profile), this is really more time-consuming and labor intensive than the above DATCOM+ approach. No matter which path you take, if you are able to produce a decent flyable FM that also produces reasonably accurate and realistic in-game performance, you will have become part of a very elite minority in the Third Wire modding community. FM modders are few and far between since you have to know a lot of math, understand the functions of the various aerodynamic co-efficients, and have plenty of time for research and testing.

If the A-4s drop their ordnance and engage, they are anything but defenseless. They obviously don't have the speed and power of the MiG-21, but the MiG-21 flies a lot like an F-4 and an A-4 flies a lot like a MiG-17, so you have to be patient and fight in the vertical if the A-4s engage aggressively. In this case, they let me empty my missiles into their flares and pull in close for a gunshot before they scattered and engaged. Of course, while I am turning and burning with the A-4s, their are usually some F-4s and Neshers looking for easy missile shots. I do get shot down sometimes by AIM-7s, AIM-9s, and Shafrir. I enjoy MiG-21 versus F-4 fights the most if the AI pilot has a high skill level. They always take me on a long ride of vertical and horizontal scissors with yo-yos, lag rolls, you name it. Whereas the A-4s just outturn me, then I outclimb them, rinse wash repeat until the AI gets distracted by another issue and flies straight long enough for me to get shots off.

Getting airborne: Taking a shot with an R-13M: Decoyed: Another R-13M shot: Out of missiles, switching to guns... no kill like a guns kill:

A very "sim-lite" game that might give you some of what you want is Operation Flashpoint or its follow-on, Armed Assault. The strengths of Operation Flashpoint/Resistance (Game of the Year edition is the best option since everything you need is in one package) are: 1. Endless addons covering almost everything possible (especially for 1980s to modern). 2. Combined arms combat: air, armor, infantry, anti-air, mines, and addons that cover artillery 3. Powerful mission scripting 4. Fun as single player or multiplayer The limitations: 1. The focus of the game is infantry, so armor and aircraft physics are nowhere near realistic. For example, view distances are too short for air to air combat to be of much use and ground vehicles have a tendency to bounce and slide and are able to traverse really steep hills. 2. The AI on the hardest settings cheats to some extent and on the lower settings is too dumb... but once you get used to the way the game works, the hardest gameplay settings are by far the way to go for maximum difficulty and fun. 3. The graphics were considered below average when the game was released so many years ago and looks horrific compared to modern games... but it had to be that way since the cpu is way too busy processing the large maps with their huge number of objects and making the AI fairly interesting while simultaneously trying to be an FPS, car sim, armor sim, motorcycle sim, airplane sim, and helo sim. The stock armor in the game is great for Cold War 1980s battles: M60 or M1 versus T72 or T80. The newer version called Armed Assault takes a first rate machine to run. It dramatically improves the graphics, but if you don't have a strong machine, you almost have to run at minimun settings making the game look as bad or worse than the original. The AI got even better... so unless you like dying a lot (like me), you will probably tone it down some to get more realistic behavior (i.e. less likely to spot you and less likely to hit you as the hardest AI picks you out of bushes at super long distances after only firing 2 rounds from a sniper rifle). Aside from lower performance, the newer game is not backwards compatible with all the addons from the old game, so the big addon plus just isn't there yet. While die hard armor and helo fans will laugh at me calling this a sim for either... The overall feel is very realistic despite the oversimplification of some of the physics and controls. The mission scripting is very advanced permitting very detailed and realistic missions that provide a very high immersion factor. So instead of worrying about whether the AH-1 Cobra flies like a real AH-1, you focus on the employement of your helo: evading anti-air while trying to knock out armor. I really love to use the gun and rockets to hunt infantry that is trying to run and hide in trees and bushes. I have never gotten into hard-core armor sims like Steel Beasts, just haven't had the time... but OFP gives me a lot of the fun without having to learn the real systems. I used to play miniatures games that modeled modern armored warfare: Combined Arms, Command Decision, and several other rules sets. Sudden Strike is a great WW2 game that plays a lot like those miniatures games, but real time rather than turn based. I thoroughly enjoyed trying to win playing every possible side: US, France, UK, USSR, Germany, and Japan. The troops have pseudo personalities and watching air, armor, artillery, infantry, and even some sea power all interact on a scale that OFP can't handle is really fun. You can issue lots of orders to individual units... or give general orders to groups and see how the AI fairs on its own. If you want to win, you will get very good at doing both since the AI isn't bright enough to do what you want without some very specific path, movement, cover, and fire commands. I love armor vs infantry fights such playing either side. It is fun luring tanks into minefields and it is fun to be commanding the tanks and mauling infantry for little or no damage if you can avoid the AT guns and minefields. One of my favorite scenarios is one where a bunch of USSR armor and artillery is surrounded and being assaulted by overwhelming numbers of German armor and infantry including lots of airborne troops. If you carefully use what little infantry you have to get good recon info on German positions, you can place rocket barrages on their rally points and win mainly through long range artillery... but it takes lots of practice to know what to use and when to use it, usually the German armor will close within visual range of your positions and smoke the Soviet armor then quickly kill off the artillery and finally German armor and infantry will hunt down and kill any survivors. Sudden Strike went through many revisions adding more sides and equipment (like Japanesse and ships), the latest may already be released or is just about to be released. It is supposed to have better graphics and better AI. I highly recommend the older versions if you like WW2 ground combat in any way shape or form at company/battalion/regiment level with all soldiers and equpment modeled at 1:1 scale.

Take all the time you need, just make sure you finish it and release it some day. I would love to have a T-38A and the more accurate you can make it, the better. While the F-5 and T-38 are very similar... to my eye, the T-38 has more subtle curves that make it even more appealing to me despite being a trainer. I was just old enough to remember seeing the Thunderbirds fly the F-4E, but for the majority of my childhood, they flew the T-38A. Thanks to the experiences I had seeing them up close, flying demonstrations, and in studying my copy of the 1976 Replica in Scale Thunderbirds edition, I came to love every line of the T-38A. Of course, for air combat purposes, the F-5E is far more appealing and really looks good with LERX extenstions. The F-20 is a great "what-if", especially since there were real flying examples, but despite its looks and performance, I favor the F-5E with its much longer, varied, and more interesting service history. The MF F-5A held my attention for quite some time back when I used to host SFP1 multiplayer and flew it against the F-14A. Very eye pleasing and fun to fly. I am sure will enjoy any and all versions of the T-38/F-5 you release just as much or more.

I challenge anyone to find anywhere in my posts where I have insulted the Tomcat or any of the people who flew and maintained it. I have challenged the opinion that the Tomcat was the best and most famous US fighter just of all time. I have tried to challenge those opinions with facts and "informed opinions" quoted from other sources. I am human, so certainly some personal bias can be found in some of my comments, but I consider this inconsequential compared to the level of bias in many of the pro-Tomcat posts. I did not intend and do not think I have directly attacked anyone posting here, other than disagreeing with statements and trying to support my opposing views... which, correct me if I am wrong, is one of the primary functions of a forum even within a given topic. I recognize the Tomcat's strengths, and understand why so many people like it, but it was far from perfect and I of course would argue that overall, its weaknesses prevent it from being the overall best all-around fighter among its contemporaries. The AWG-9/AIM-54 combination combined with speed, range, and endurance gave it the potential to be the best interceptor. Under ideal test conditions, it mostly demonstrated that potential. But for many reasons, that potential was never realized in US service. The Iranian experience is hard to judge, because any failures on their part can be blamed on lack of training, parts, etc., likewise successes can be blamed on the poor training and equipment of their opponents... which is a problem the Israelis face: have they really been so good all these years, or was it that their opponents were just so bad? Perhaps if the Shah had not fallen and the US fully supported Iran, the Tomcat would have easily surpassed the F-15's combat record and made the Iraq-Iran war substantially shorter with the absolute air superiority it was capable of providing. But that is all speculation and we will never know. Instead of complaining about its retirement, Tomcat fans should be happy that the F-14D was ever even built. I saw the prototype F-14D at Miramar and was afraid it was never going to be produced as the Navy budget axes were already starting to fall before Desert Shield even started (though they really fell after Desert Storm was over). The F-14D represented what the Tomcat should have always been (as the F-15E is for the Eagle). The F-4 set the precedent: a two-man fighter with high thrust-to-weight, the best radar available, and the ability to accurately employ every weapon in the US inventory is far more useful than dedicated interceptors and dogfighters. Both the F-14 and F-15 always had the capacity to be outstanding multi-role aircraft, but were purchased and employed as if they were 1-dimensional due to politics and the embarrassment of the Vietnam air-to-air record compared to Korea. The main problem with these two aircraft is their price. Otherwise, every USAF fighter and attack aircraft could have been F-15Es and every Navy carrier fighter and attack aircraft could have been F-14Ds. Budget problems not only forced the Navy to settle for F/A-18Es, the USAF was trying to replace F-4Gs and A-10s with F-16s and only got a fraction of the F-15Es they needed. When compared as multirole aircraft, rather than fighters, the F-14D is more competitive as the Strike Eagle gained some weight and initially kept the older lower-powered engines of the F-15C. While the swing-wing cost quite a bit in terms of weight and purchase prices, the fully swept back position gives it a much better ride quality for high-speed, low-level penetration missions... from that perspective, the F-15E was considered a downgrade from the F-111 it was replacing... But the USAF didn't even consider the F-14 when it had the fly-off between the F-15 and F-16 for the Strike Eagle contract. They missed out, because in many ways it was the best plane for the mission. For better or worse, it is looking like the F-22 and F-35 may really be the last manned fighters the US ever buys, which would leave the F-14D as the best fighter ever stationed on aircraft carriers since aside from being more stealthy, the F-35 is a downgrade compared to the F-14D.

Long before "Top Gun", there was a TV movie called "Red Flag" about an F-4 pilot obsesed with beating his old Vietnam War buddy who keeps kicking his butt with an F-5 Aggressor. It lacked the star power and music of "Top Gun", but the plot lines are not that much different. If you are a true aviation fanatic as opposed to being obseesed with the Tomcat, I think it is worth watching just to compare. The only real movie I can think of that showcased the F-4 to some extent was "The Great Santini", but the movie was more about the how the family of an alocoholic career fighter pilot struggled to overcome their problems with only a little footage of the F-4 at the beginning and end of the movie. The main character of the TV series "Call to Glory" (played by Craig T. Nelson) was and F-4 pilot, but it was more of a soap opera about life on the ground. A few episodes showcased various aircraft including the F-4.

Reread my post... it inlcudes the reference, an Osprey Combat Aircraft #67.

I am sure the Tomcat overshadows the F-4 and F-15 among its cult, and to a certain extent with the kids that grew up with Top Gun, but I am quite sure that the B-17, P-40, P-51, and F4U are as more widely known as American symbols than the Tomcat. After the WW2 generation, I am not sure which is more widely recognized: the F-86 or the F-4 and UH-1. Given the lack of coverage that Korea gets compared to Vietnam on TV, in the movies, and even in games, I am willing to bet the F-4 and UH-1 beat out the Tomcat as well. When I was a kid (prior to the movie Top Gun), more people knew and loved the F-4 and/or F-16 than the F-15 and F-14... and the all-glass-MFD Star Wars-like F/A-18 was viewed as out of this world. Yes, top gun made the F-14 a movie icon, but I think you will find that outside of Hollywood fame, the F-16 and F-15 have bigger fan bases. The F-16 is truly multinational and pretty much known and liked by everyone who flies it. The F-16 also got a nice plug from Hollywood from Iron Eagle. Despite its abilities and combat record, the F-15 has never been as much of a popular showboat with the general public... until the Strike Eagle. There were two stars of Desert Storm as presented by the news media: the F-117 and the F-15E. The F-14 was pretty much benched during Desert Storm since its primary capability, the AIM-54, was too expensive and increased the likelihood of friendly fire kills. In the flight sim world, the F-16 is the clear winner with the F-15 and F/A-18 following in close for 2nd place. What computer geek hasn't played some iteration of the Strike Eagle series and/or Jane's Strike Eagle? The market meets the demand (if they want to make a profit), so the most popular aircraft get modeled over and over while some of the more interesting planes get passed over. When survey sims were common and carriers were covered, the Tomcat always got on the flyables list... but otherwise it has been all Strike Eagle/Fighting Falcon/Hornet. Meanwhile, the older more challenging aircraft like the 1950s and 1960s USAF and USN fighters were largely left alone... until SFP1 came along. I would say the Tomcat has been left out of flight sims because of: 1) its complexity, but then the Strike Eagle and Hornet were way more complex than the F-14A and got full hard-core sims. 2) the complexity of carrier operations, but the Hornet has those. 3) its 2-man crew, but the Strike Eagle has a crew of two and Strike Eagle 3 had the coolest feature ever: front-seater/back-seater co-op gameplay, only Dangerous Waters gives you that kind of gameplay in a hard core sim. 4) its age: the cockpit, like the F-15A looks more like a Vietnam era pit than the glass MFD look of the Strike Eagle and Hornet... Maybe I am on to something as there are not any truly hard core sims of any aircraft that don't have glass MFD pits. The only decent 3d sims were: Falcon series, Strike Eagle series, Jane's Strike Eagle, Jane's F/A-18, a few F-22 sims, and Flanker 2.0, which evolved into a the semi survey sim LOMAC. LOMAC is the only one that defies the glass pit cockpit rule... but then compared to Falcon 4.0 and Jane's Super Hornet, it is not quite a hard core sim. The most classic survey sim of all time, Jane's Fighters Anthology, featured both the Tomcat and the Phantom, but modeled all pits using generic pop-up MFD displays along the bottom of the screen. MiG Alley was the only jet sim without glass cockpits, but it was really an extension of Battle of Britain with the jet cockpits looking hardly different from prop planes. So it seems it is the generation between 1950 and 1980 that has been slighted by the fligth sim developers. It makes sense. The flight models are much harder to simulate than subsonic WW2 planes and digital fly-by-wire modern jets. The cockpits are filled with complex avionics that are difficult to model in detail. These aircraft have missiles and possibly radar, but they don't work very well and generally don't dogfight very well even if they do carry guns (F-14 and F-15 excepted on the dogfighting part, but their original missiles were Vietnam era and were not quite the AIM-120/AIM-7M/AIM-9M experience typically modeled in Strike Eagle/Falcon 4.0/Jane's F/A-18). So SFP1 is really the first sim that has even tried to model the 1950-1980 era decently with detailed accurate cockpits, flight models, and to a certain extent, the weapons and avionics. In that regard, the SFP1 game engine is a huge step forward from Jane's Fighters Anthology and Jane's USAF. Hopefully, TK uses the next release to add in the components needed to model the F-14A, AWG-9, and AIM-54A correctly, perhaps with a few carrier ops refinements? A combined historical/fictional Libyan terrain/campaign/mission set would be nice. Perhaps adding the F-111 to the stock flyable stable as well to permit the infamous "around France" F-111 raid? Though it would be more useful to provide A-4, A-6, and A-7 variants. Back on topic... I disagree with any assement that the F-14 is as American as apple pie as compared to the other "teen" fighters. In fact, most publications treat all four aircraft as one homogenous symbol of America's total domination of the air after Vietnam. Only the varous books on the individual aircraft ever really try to name one as being better than the others... and like the flight sim developers, they are just catering to their market. Who else is going to be reading a book on a jet fighter other than someone who is already interested in that fighter in some way?

Sharing 3d models and textures would be very useful. Both communities could benefit. But right now, Targetware mainly has WW2 planes, which could be useful for some SFP1 fans, but jets seem to be the focus of most people given they can already get WW2 planes from a number of sources. Targetware's lack of support for avionics and weapons of the 60's era and later means there isn't much use in porting SFP1 jets into Targetware yet either. So while I like the idea, I don't think it makes too much sense at the moment. If I were a 3d modeler, I would gladly share my 3d model with any sim community able to use it.

Which is why I poked fun at the Tomcat in the first place with the F-15 patch making fun of the 'anytime, baby' theme. You would think the Tomcat was the greatest plane that ever flew from the following it has... it is almost a religion! If you want to worship a plane, the F-4 Phantom is clearly the better choice: it was so good, the USAF was forced to buy it after it outpermformed more specialized aircraft in extensive "fly-offs". The F-4 was a better all-weather radar missile interceptor than the F-106. The F-4 climbed better than the F-104. The F-4 was a better strike aircraft than the F-105. The only thing the F-4 wasn't good at was turning with MiGs, and a few weeks of Top Gun school gave Navy pilots the ability to outfly the MiG-17 close-in despite being unable to turn... especially considering the Navy refused to put slats on their F-4s, which not only reduced turn performance, but made the F-4 very likely to depart controlled flight in an unrecoverable manner. While a few Tomcats still fly with Iran, the F-4 is pretty much flying with every air force who ever flew her (Korea, Japan, Israel, Germany, Greece, Turkey) except the USA, UK, and maybe Spain, predating Tomcat service by more than 10 years, yet still flying as a frontline interceptor and strike aircraft to this very day! Yet there are some people who harp on the Phantom as being at best a mediocre aircraft just because it couldn't turn as well as MiGs and didn't have a big bubble canopy. I wouldn't be surprised if F-4s were still in service long after the F-22 has been retired.

It was not possible to afford the better aircraft or the Navy would have bought it. I was in the Navy in the 1990s, the budget was axed on everything including people. The Navy was smarter than the USAF, at least they got new airplanes. The USAF decided to put all their eggs in the super expensive F-22 basket, now look what that got them. They can't afford to buy adequate numbers of F-22s and the F-15s are literally falling apart. Better to have new, slightly less capable aircraft on every carrier deck than have carriers with undermanned wings. If the F-14 wasn't so expensive, there never would have been an F/A-18. There is no doubt the F-14 couldn't perform every task filled by the F/A-18... the Navy could have created the F-14D in the early 70s. But even at the height of the Reagan era, there wasn't enough money to buy hoardes of F-14Ds. Now with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the money for everything is gone... No LHX, no Sea Wolf submarine, barely any B-2 bombers, etc. The loss of the F-14 wasn't a bad spending decision, it was a necessary one. Most taxpayers want to keep as much of their money as possible while still allowing to the goverment to provide the services they want and need. Continuing 1980's Cold War defense spending levels without a Cold War threat would have ultimately lead our government down the same path we push the Soviets: total collapse. To date, I don't think one battle has been lost or one mission has failed due to using a Super Hornet where a Tomcat would have. The Super Hornet is inferior, but only marginally so compared to the difference in price.

When buying an aircraft, cost effectiveness is a huge factor. Both the F-15 and F-14 pushed the limits when it came to cost, which is why the F-16 is the most produced western fighter in service right now. If you are going to dogfight, clearly the F-16 is better suited for that role than any other aircraft: small not only means agile, but also hard to see. But, dogfighting means risking your aircraft as even the best dogfighter can be beaten by inferior aircraft with correct tactics: think F4F vs A6M. Also, dogfighting requires good visibility. The original YF-16 was pretty much a daylight/fairweather dogfighter, fortunately it ended up with the APG-66 which gave it some night/adverse whether interception capability... but then its AIM-9 armament was still limited by those conditions. So, cheap dogfighters will not meet all mission requirements. Bring on the all-weather interceptors. Of course, Vietnam experience with the F-4 Phantom showed that even high-thrust-to-weight all-weather interceptors need the ability to dogfight: bubble canopy, good turnning ability, and a gun. Both the F-14 and F-15 were products of this experience. The F-14 leans more toward the long-range interceptor. The F-15 leans more toward the dogfighter. The tunnel between the engines allows big AIM-54s to be carried with less drag than when hung from pylons... not extra lift. Lift comes primarily from the large smooth area on the top of the wing. The F-14 only has outstanding lift when its wings are swept forward where its glider like high aspect ratio provides excellent lift-to-drag. The F-15 also enjoys a fairly low drag configuration from its conformal Sparrow carriage and enjoys the same large smooth area on top of its wing. What the F-15 is sorely missing is combat flaps and/or slats. These high-lift devices were omitted to keep complexity and cost down. So the F-15 has no variable geometry to make up for its fixed wing with a sweep angle optimized for supersonic flight. Even crippled in comparison to the F-14, F-16, and F-18, the F-15 still out turned all of the threats it was designed to beat using thrust to compensate for some of the missing lift: the MiG-21 and MiG-23. If you are willing to spend the money to buy an F-14D, then why not get and F-15C or F-15E with uprated engines? The only loss is the expensive AIM-54, and AMRAAM largely replaced the AIM-54 except in maximum engagement range. There was no conspiracy against the Tomcat... just the beancounters making the decision could see the existing ones cost quite a bit and building new ones would cost even more. Given the historical record, there was no encounter the F-14s handled during its service that the Super Hornet couldn't handle... though with a few more aerial refuelings. The AIM-54 ability was never needed nor was Mach 2.3+ speed. Can't fault the government for trying to buy what is needed rather than what is wanted.

Anytime, baby?... anytime before the last airframe was retired The F-15 may break into pieces if you pull 8gs, but it is still serving. If the Israelis aren't lying about their losses, the F-15 is the only fighter in history to go undefeated in air combat while also being one of the longest serving. Whereas Iraqis have some Tomcat wreckage to plant in their gardens. One guncam pic of an F-15 in an F-14 does not mean the F-14 was better at dogfighting. No doubt the Tomcat served long and well as a very capable platform... but when the Israelis needed a true air superiority fighter which did they pick and why? The Israeli evaluation team wanted to have a head-to-head fly-off between the F-14 and F-15 to really see which one was better in a dogfight, but the US would not permit that (I think the reason is obvious: neither service wanted to risk losing funding to their programs if Israelis tests produced a clear winner). So here is what the Israelis had to say about the F-14 versus the F-15 in dogfighting situations as quoted from Osprey Combat Aircraft . 67 Israeli F-15 Eagle Units in Combat: David Ivry, who headed up the IDF/AF's Air Department/Group from 1973 to 1975, had flown an F-14 from Naval Air Station (NAS) Miramar during a visit to the USA in early 1974. The sortie involved several Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) scenarios against an A-4 Skyhawk flown by an adversary squadron. Ivry later recalled; "I was impressed with the F-14, even though it was heavy on the controls. The aircraft's engines were also sensitive, which meant that it was impossible to fly the Tomcat agressively as we would our jets." Israel Baharav was intimately involved in the evaluation of the F-14, and he later recalled; "During our evaluation of the F-14 and F-15 against the F-4 and A-4, we stuck firmly to the principles of the superior fighter versus the inferior jet. We prepared ourselves accordingly, and were thoroughly familiar with the performance statistics associated with all four aircraft. We instinctively figured that the F-14 and F-15 would carry more energy coming into the fight, but that they would turn more slowly than the A-4 in particular. Despite our preparations, we were simply amazed when we flew the F-15 against the F-4. The Eagle maintained its thrust-to-weight advantage and turned much quicker than the F-4. Here we had a superior fighter that was also more maneuverable than the inferior jet! When we evaluated the F-14, the US Navy pilots at NAS Miramar told us that the Tomcat could perform equally as well in a dogfight with an A-4. This did not prove to be the case, however, for when I flew the TA-4 against the F-14, the end result of the engagement was embarrassment for the Tomcat. Not only could the TA-4 out-turn the F-14, but during the turn itself, the Tomcat's energy state dropped so low that I was able to fly the TA-4 in the vertical as though the Skyhawk was teh superior fighter than the F-14 the inferior! Assaf Ben-Nun also flew a two-hour sortie in a TA-4F that included DACT against the F-14, and he too was disappointed to discover that the Skyhawk was superor to the F-14 in the WVR air combat scenario. He then flow a one-hour Tomcat mission from Naval Air Facility El Centro, in California, with the US Navy pilot Keith Sheehan in the back seat. Ben Nun remembered; "The F-14 lacked thrust, was complex and not user-friendly and was not aerodynamically clean -- indeed, the jet shuddered every time I pulled high-G or high angle-of-attack. During my sortie, I flew DACT against Amnon Arad in a Skyhawk, and although we finished with honours even at the end of the session, I found it hard to believe that the F-14 had no edge whatsoever over the A-4 in WVR air combat." The TF30 turbofans were the downfall of the F-14A, making it both unreliable and underpowered. The F-15's F100 turbofan had its issues, but when it came time to upgrade engines, the F-14 and F-16 got major upgrades first while the F-15 kept its old F100 because the thrust to weight of the F-15 was considered adequate without an upgrade. With uprated engines, the F-15 retains the thrust-to-weight advantage it always had over all other US fighters until the arrival of the F-22. Of course, while Israel chose the F-15, Iran chose the F-14... both countries could have had either one yet chose differently. I do not know the criteria that caused Iran to choose the F-14 over the F-15, though I would guess that they wanted the Phoenix weapons system to shutdown MiG-25 overflights. Of course, Israel found the F-15 was adequate in that role while being far more useful in the WVR combat situation they normally encountered. While I am sad to see the Tomcat retired, I certainly don't see it as such a great aircraft that no other could equal it or replace it. Of course, it would be nice if the Navy had replaced the Tomcat with an aircraft that actually had better range, payload, and preformance... but such is the way of politics and budget slashing in this post cold war world: the Super Hornet is smaller and cheaper.

If that is the case, maybe it was hacked? For some reason, SFP1 modder sites have always attracted hackers. I don't know if the hackers were motivated because they were fans of competing sims... Or maybe they stumbled onto fun/easy targets? Or maybe they were fans of SFP1 and had issues with the people they attacked? Of course, as many longtime SFP1 website managers know, ISPs can dump your files on a whim due to incompetency, accidents, or whatever excuse they give. Maybe Dave's site needs to fall on the CombatAce.com realm... The only thing I dislike about consolidating all resources into CombatAce is that if it ever gets dumped or hacked, everything may be lost.