Salamander67

Going for a navalized version of the Eurofighter, Rafale or Super Gripen all has their own problems. First: None of them is STOVL capable, meaning you need a CTOL carrier (or a STOBAR), the RN can perhaps afford it (have heard thet the QE will be prepared for later re-roling if needed), but i doubt that the Italian, Australian or several other smaller navies will be interested. However, there is considerable interest in short-deck carriers for STOVL-operations. Second: Except for the Rafale there aren't even prototypes of these navalized derivatives (in the case of the Super Gripen there isn't even a mock-up of the land-based version). Third: Again, except for the Rafale, the companies behind them has no recent experience in building shipboard CTOL-fighters. SAAB has NEVER built a shipboard fighter. As for the F-22, yes, everybody would like to operate it, but the unit cost is far largfer than for the F-35, and the tech-transfer problems will probably just be bigger. The reason why the F-16 was a export success was not that it was better suited to European requirements than the F-15 or F-14, but rather that it was considerably cheaper and capable of delivering bombs too. Arguably, what most countries in Europe are looking for is a relatively cheap aircraft, capable of working both as a air-to-air fighter and as a bombtruck. Preferably it should be a aircraft that is sold in big numbers (especially to neighbouring countries) so training, spares, operating procedures and so on can be streamlined. If you with "frontline fighter" mean a single role fighter/interceptor, I think the market for that is pretty small... And then there is politics, most NATO-countries (and several other European countries too) will not by a Russian design. Not that they would be in ferior, but because of politics and a general fear that they can not trust the Russian government (something that has increased since August). I'm not saying they're right, but in reality this do hamper Russian exports. Gripen is in a better position, but again, it's far better to buy American arms and become better friends with them (and operate the same planes as several other NATO-members do), than to make sure one is a really good friend with Sweden. It's all about politics... This leaves Eurofighter and the Rafale, with Eurofighter as the sligthly stronger contestant due to being operated by more countries. They can compete with the F-35A, but they lack stealth-caractheristics. Is the extra stealthiness worth it's price? That's an unanswered question. Still, there is no STOVL design for smaller carriers (or forward basing/operations from damaged runways), which means that the F-35B will probably gain some export orders, little matter how expensive it becomes or how un-stealthy it is. Ooh, and btw, this has moved away from Israeli F-35 info quite some while ago...

What's the plan B? Navalized Typhoon? That's hardly cost-effecient, not to mention the stealth-characteristics... The thing is, even if the involved countries are screaming for more insight (which they probably are quite justified to, I mean, how do you operate an aircraft you don't know totally?), there is no other comparable aircraft in development at the moment. Something especially true for the ones interested in maintaing a jump-jet carrier (read: UK, and to a lesser extent Italy). So they might have to go ahead and buy it anyway, which probably is going to be a quite bad deal...

I would be surprised if the IDF/AF, ISAF or IAF (don't know what the proper title is nowadays...) completly withdrew from the project, although cuts in the planned number shure can happen. The Israelis have operated a sizeable force of first-class fighters since the sixties, and if they don't get the F-35, what else then? Eurofighter? Sukhoi's? Rafale? Gripen? Or F-22? Nah, don't think so. We'll almost certainly see F-35's with blue stars.

Is it confirmed that they're opting for the F-35B if they go trough with the option? In Jpost a month ago they said that the option is for another 50 F-35A or B, which variant it finally would be was (then at least) undecided. Personally I think that STOVL is a feature that certainly can be useful, but operating one squadron of A's and two with B's might not be cost efficent (spares, training, and so on). However, as shown with the F-15I, it's not impossible. Certainly interesting though :yes:

"Whether passengers will be willing to trust a pilot using only a camera to fly is another question altogether." That's the main problem. Sure you can build a windowless aircraft, and sure you can make it work 999 time sout of 1 000, but what about the last time??? In a military aircraft in wartimes you could perhaps accept that kind of a bet, if the design gave you considerable advantages over the enemy, but a civilian biz-jet? No way! Anybody ever wondered why the military Nimrod was more succesfull than the civilian Comet? Well, part of the answer (only a part, but still), was the design with the engines mounted close to each other and the body. In case of an engine fire (we're talking 1950's jet engines here), the risk for a wing failure was big. Simply put: the idea worked well most of the time, but not always. The Nimrod was developed ten-fifteen years later, and did have modern turbofans. Probably the windowless aircraft idea will go the same way, nothing happens now, because the system is too unsafe for civilian operations, but in a decade or two it might be in limited use in some air force/navy project.

The B-1A was a quite different bird than the B-1B, designed for the traditional high-altitude strategic role. Then it was re-roled for more low-level flight, but it still was thought to be highly vulnerable when entering Soviet air space, although being faster and having a smaller RCS than the B-52. Also, the program was getting quite expensive, and it was seen that a combination of ATB (the future B-2), ICBM and B-52 with long-range air-launched cruise missiles would be a better option.

Now, a really funny thing I've noticed, everbody I know who are Mac or Linux users keep on going about how great the system works, how crashproof they are, and so on, and so on, while nearly all Microsoft users are going on about how useless and unstable their computers are. Makes one wonder...

32-bit Vista here since a year back, no major problems whatsoever, especially since SP1 speed up the file transfer (moving files did take forever before SP1, admitted). And I'm no fan of Microsoft, for that matter. Running old games is no problem either for most part (all the way back to good ol'e Age of Empires ), although Jane's IAF didn't work out (yeah, I know it's old, but it was my first jet sim so it's a personal classic). Bottomline, I would say that Vista with SP1 is slightly better than XP with SP2, and the gap will probably increase over time as e.g. more drivers are tailor made for Vista. Yes, I know that not all of you are happy with it, but everybody has the right to their opinion, right?

Great! This is the reason why I love the internet Many thanks!

Personally I'm wondering wheter the mysterious F-13 wouldn't be the YF-113/MiG-23 after all... But let's admit it, when someone throw such a deisgnation in our face, were just guessing about its meaning. Thinking of it, how would the JSF be in a turning dogfight, starting well within visual range, could a MiG-21 have any chance? Addmittedly, I don't have any good ideas about how it would get there in a real life situation, but as it seems this was computer simulations with changing parameters, the scenario was probably tested.

Ooops! That's right, it's a F-84F, I didn't know the French ever had them, let alone operated them in the Suez. Now when I think aboout it, I thought the guns were looking a bit misplaced...

The French F-84F is a Dassault Mystére IV, it was the main Armée de l'Air-fighter before the Mirage and used in quite large numbers, although mainly in France, which is why it's quite unkwon today outside France, Israel and India (the operators back in the days). The Israeli Mystére's and Ouragans (an earlier straight wing French fighter) did get a few kills in -56, and shone in the AG-role in -67 when they wrecked havoc over the retreating Egyptian army. So far I haven't seen them in any sims, so it would be nice to see them in a sim.

They have the "First Fighter" and their red-striped tails, so probably the most famous israeli tailmarking is covered . Still missing the 105 Tayesset though, if you would want to make a quite spectacular artwork that would perhaps be something to go for http://kits.kitreview.com/f16drveiewdw_1.htm . The squadron is perhaps best known for being the only Israeli operator of the Super Mystére, but they upgraded to F-16 Brakeet, the indigenous SEAD-variant, in the early 1990's and have flown them since (according to Israeli aviation writer Shlomo Aloni, nothing is ever sure about the IDF/AF ).

Hello, Does anybody know if someone, somewhere has created a newbies guide to creating skins for F4:AF? I've been playing flight sims and F4:AF for quite some time, and was starting to think about customizing it a bit. Anybody knows where to star

Thanks, I'll start looking around and see what I can find!

Found my source about the Blackbirds over the Baltic sea, a swedish book about the GCI's of the swedish air force. The Blackbirds flew a more or less standard track, starting at RAF Mildenhall, flying over Bornholm (Denmark), turning north and coming back over international water between Gotland and Öland. For those with no map it means passing through a narrow strait, which means that the aircraft has to hold a straigth course. Contrary to what I rembered the writer doesn't mention any successfull intercepts. A MiG-25 based in DDR chased a Blackbird all the way back 30 km inside danish territory, failing to close in for a real intercept. Instead, the PVO installed long-range SAM's at Hiiumaa that painted the aircraft when it flew by. The swedes could use the avialbility of the narrow strait though, and managed to guide head-on intercepts a few times. This usually required that the aircrafts, J35 Draken's and JA37 Viggen's, being airborne when the Blackbird appeard over Denmark. If they were lucky and had good guys at the radar they could meet the aircraft for one head-on pass when it flew on the part of the course that was predictable. Calling it an "intercept" probably is an overstatement. The only real intercept happened on the 29th of June 1987 when a SR-71 appeard "low" (well, for a Blackbird) over Gotland. An airborne element with two JA37 first intercepted it and found that only one engine was lit. A while later a second element that had been standing quick reaction alert at a Base in southern Sweden started and also managed to close in on the damaged bird and take a few pcitures of it. It was then escorted to Denmark where dansih fighters were waiting for it. But as said, the aircraft was flying on one engine, so this doesnät probably count as a "true" intercept either.

My thoughts on the subject... 1) Generally I belive that the MiG-25 was not able to shoot down the SR-71, too fast, too high, to put it simply. 2) Aviation history is full of miracles, inferior planes holding their own, someone having a bad day. In a "Cold War gone hot"-situation, I belive that sooner or later some lucky guy (or unlucky Blackbird pilot, e.g. suffering some kind of a failure) probably would have damaged/downed a SR-71. Perhaps a lucky SAM, perhaps a perfect fighter intercept. Arguably though, the SA-2 seemed to be useless for the task. 3) About the intercepts over the Baltic I've read about them in Swedish books, the swedes having monitored it on radar. The SR-71 had to follow a quite small corridor, and the soviets could plot it for quite some time, knowing where it was going, it was possible to guide a MiG-25 in such a position (well below the Blackbird) that it could achive a radar lock for a few seconds. However, as the MiG was positioned well below and much slower, I doubt any missiles fired would have had even a remote chance of hitting their target. Put in the short reaction time (I might be wrong, but I think normal time they managed to have the target locked was betwen five and ten seconds). Personally I belive that the scenario above was possible, whether it would count as an intercept is a matter of interpretation (and national pride ). There were quite a number of different US/NATO-aircrafts flying over the Baltic sea, ranging from West German Atlantics and Tornadoes to the SR-71. The reason for using the SR-71 is that the higher you are, the further you can see, meaning that the Blackbird saw things that the lower-flying aircrafts didn't. 4) I have never heard about a Blackbird being intercepted in another area, if it happened, I bet there was *quite* a number of failed attempts for every succesfull one. And, finally: 5) The Thud was the fastest aircraft around down-in-the-grass in its time. Of course if the MiG is in front of you that still means you will run into trouble, and in a dogfight the Ultra-hog was too big for its own good, and a MiG-(insert any number over 15) would probably have an advantage, that's why the Thuds usually had escort from the "nimble" Phantoms. Bottomline: Some of the arguments that different people have been throwing at each other does not contradict each other The Blackbird may have been "intercepted", though that doesn't mean it was in mortal danger. The Thud was faster, though that doesn't mean that it was immune against MiG-21's.

One question that I haven't found an answer for yet: what is the difference between "Wings over Israel" and "Combat over Israel"? Some forums state that these are the same, but specs for the later claims that it runs on XP and Vista, while WoI seems to require some modding/tweaking in order to run. Is CoI the promised re-work for Vista, or are we still waiting for that one???