Gunrunner

CW2. Wells> Yep, and some analyst basically saying "nah, the AF is BSing Congress to get more F22, just use some duct tape and they're good for another 20 years". Let's rant against politicians and bean counter killing pretty planes and worse, risking soldier's lives in a quest for power or perceived savings.

Cover72> Simulated dogfights at Le Bourget Air Show, yeah right... Considering that any demonstration or fly-by at Le Bourget Air Show (and all European air shows I know of) must be planned and known to the millimeter (figuratively speaking) and that Le Bourget airspace allowing demonstrations is rather small (and is overlapping Roissy-Charles de Gaulle's airspace, France's busiest commercial airport and airspace) , I highly doubt there ever has been such simulated dogfight there since a long long time. 1) It's doubtful it happened as described over Le Bourget airspace (too small to satisfy security regulations). 2) It's doubtful it happened as described over Le Bourget airspace outside of the Air Show context as Le Bourget is still an active commercial airport, used mostly for private and corporate jets (IIRC, LBG is one of the first if not the first European airports in term of corporate traffic). 3) It's doubtful it happened as described at Le Bourget Air Show (demonstrations are simple fly-by or planned and rehearsed aerobatic events within a very limited airspace). 4) It's doubtful it happened as described at a European Air Show during the Gripen "lifetime" (regulations are very very strict when a/ there is public (as is the case at Le Bourget Air Show even during purely industry days), b/ this happens over a densely populated area (as is the case with Le Bourget, Berlin and, to a lesser extent, Farnborough; Have a look at Google Map if you have the slightest doubt) and c/ this might interfere with commercial traffic (as is the case at Le Bourget with CDG's traffic)). So unless you can cite a good, reliable and verifiable source, this looks like a fairy tale.

CoolHand29> The trouble here is that there is differences betwen a F-16A-1, a F-16A-15, a F-16C-30 and a F-16C-52+. The RCS comparison doesn't specify which F-16A or which F-16C. The F-16A-1 was of almost completely metallic construction, with little study and thought given to reducing RCS. Later variants included more and more composite materials, and once RAM were becoming cheap and maintenance-friendly enough, some were incorporated as well (starting with Block 40 (a F-16C Block)). Anyway, RAM are not a panacea, being mostly useful against a rather narrow range of frequencies, and given that their use in the F-16 is an afterthought such a spectacular decrease seems a little exxagerated (unless perhaps if you compare an early F-16A-1 to a F-16A-52+/60), especially when there has been no major redesign accounting for it (the differences between the B-1A and the B-1B being due to both the redesign of the inlet for the larger part, and use of RAM for the rest).

Thanks, I was getting confused...

Wait, two other F-22, that makes what, three of them as WIP ? Well, there's such thing as too much choice... Even though I'd rather see a Q-5 (WIP), a Yak-38 (WIP, release in a couple of decades at the rate things are going ), a JH-7 (IIRC a Marcello's WIP) or a Buccaneer (WIP too)... How I wish I had the experience to produce nice, clean, satisfying models without spending way too much time for something I end up scrapping anyway.

Nice job you have :yes: Congrats on passing

Probably : 1) Greater use of composite materials 2) Changes in the position and size of maintenance traps, draining holes, etc... 3) Changes in the canopy better isolating the cockpit, avoiding to have it acting as an echo chamber 4) Propaganda Since most of these modifications were already included in Block 15/20, propaganda might account for a large part of the difference, unless the C include some RAM, which would be surprising given the maintenance needed for the generation of RAM available at the time.

Yes, we know, the book was published in 1988/1989 and no-one had a clue what the real A-12 would look like. And frankly, even nowadays, any picture of the real thing looks retarded. I can't resist in case some forgot the "real" A-12 : There has been beautiful planes never reaching production for all the wrong reasons, but frankly the A-12 is the best example of a plane that should never have been designed in the first place. I'm just a sucker for artistic renderings and that A-12 haunted me.

Wait, wait, I know that one ! Two weeks... right ?

Not bad enough for you you take the trouble scanning them if you don't have already (I could scan them myself now, it's just that the book and the scanner are hundred of miles apart for now), it's a want rather than a need. On the other hand, if you can confirm or deny there is more illustration of these "planes" in the English version, I'd be more interested in these, but knowing myself I'd have to order it anyway. So unless you already have them scanned, don't bother (it's not as if I weren't sitting on other things for years now, that one can wait). Thanks FC.

Or even better, other illustrations of the same artistic rendering. They come from the french edition of the book "Stealth" by Doug Richardson and supposedly there are others of the same concepts, but I never found anything (not even these), I only recently tracked the book where I first saw them more than a decade ago. That was a supposed MiG-37, a counterpart to the ATF (future F-22) : And that was the way the A-12 Avenger II was envisionned, vastly sexier than the real thing :

- According to F-16.net and as dumb as it sounds, the Pave Claw gun pod with a GAU-13/A was used for a short time during Desert Storm by the 174th TFW (N-Y ANG). (source : F-16.net) - There is a GAU-13/A gun (just the gun, not the gun pod) in Bunyap's latest WP (at least I'm sure it came with it), inaccurate enough (you hardly ever hit what you aim for and even as an area weapon it's not that effective unless you really are unable to drop a cluster bomb within 30m of your target) so you can use it in a SUU-16/A pod as a good placeholder (with the graphical ugliness mentionned by Wrench). As Wrench and USAFMTL already said, it isn't worth the time spent as it is mostly useless. Also it suffers from the same problem most gun pods have, meaning that when firing it the nose gear door stutters open and shut.

Thanks a lot Julhelm, it's been, with the use of strobes (most literature suggests only one was used, while most photos contradict that by featuring one under each wing, which is a useless intellectual speculation since strobes weren't used much anyway), one of my idiotic questions about the Vigi, finding numerous conflicting answers depending on the author (here you would trust Greg Goebels and his sources IIRC).

Julhelm> Since you worked on the bird and seemingly did both versions, maybe you could answer a question for which I never found a satisfactory answer so far. The first RA-5C screen you post lacks the leading edge extension of the last two screens, supposing it's not just because the first one was a model in progres s, it would be consistant with photos of RA-5C where most have it but a few lacks it, yet I never found why it's absent on some planes (my best guess is those missing it are the handful of converted A-5B), do you have any answer ? Anyway, a huge thanks, a new, high-quality RA-5C on the horizon has me grinning like a madman.

Marc> That's a great Christmas gift to the community, thank you. :) Russo> None (the MD5 of the LODs is the same), as should be since the basic J-11/Su-27SK uses the same airframe as the Su-27S (the Su-27K being the navalised one, a very different airframe and the first with canards).

CW2. Wells> Sorry, you're perfectly right on that one, I just saw the ridiculous rhetoric and reacted just as stupidly. -_- It's just so removed from common sense... I removed it, it didn't help anyway and anything useful I could say has been said and well said by streakeagle anyway.

*insert foot in mouth, childish over-reaction* USAFMTL> You are hot-headed but fair and always make things right again once you cooled off, I think no-one can complain about that.

It all boils down to your view of "intellectual property", namely whether you consider you should have total control of your creation, or you trust your users to do the right thing; whether you are modding for your pleasure and the benefit of others, or only to boost you ego and get yourself a semblance of status. The trouble with the modding community is that it is full of egos (most with good reasons) and little method (they are very very efficient individually but mostly inefficient at collaborating on a large open scale (not just a small selection of people, but everyone who cares)). Ok, I'm starting to rant again on how modding should take some pages, no, whole chapters from the open-source book (open development, versionning, issue-tracking, precise and/or simple licences), so I'll stop here. I think most modders in it only for the status are out already, and even if some do have a similar rhetoric in times of crisis (as two weeks ago), they do not act upon it and probably don't have real disdain for the simple users. And quite frankly, it's not only the users keeping the game alive, it's the combination of modders and users, the modders alone can't help TW live, and pure users alone wouldn't make the games as attractive as it is with the wealth of elements added by the modding community, it's the subtle alchemy between TW's mode of operation and (relatively) open engine, the dedication of modders and the passion of simple users that makes it stick and allow everyone to find what they seek in the series.

What a nice little bird... That's really nice. Just out of curiosity, are you planning to work on other Fencer variants beyond the Fencer-D ? While the Su-24M (Fencer-D) is the most numerous and interesting variant game-wise, earlier (Su-24 Fencer-A/B/C, for 1971-1983 scenarios), export (Su-24MK Fencer-D, basically the Su-24M with degraded avionics and the wing-glove pylons removed, the one in Nele's picture I suspect) and specialised (Su-24MR/MP Fencer-E/F, yes I like recon missions ) airframes might be interesting but even more work, so I'll just shut up, we'll all be happy enough with a D.

Ronan> You filthy infidel, remember CombatAce First Commandment ! Thou Shalt Not Pester The Modders. Now don't say you haven't been warned if USAFMTL smites you into 2010.

Also, the RCS varies depending on the angle from which the plane is "seen" by the radar (ie. some aircrafts are optimized to reduce RCS when seen from the front and above, while some are optimized to reduce the RCS from all angles). Another interesting point is the fact that depending on the method used to obtain stealth, the RCS is not the same depending on the frequency of the radar. Then you have to understand the various methods used to reduce the RCS of an aircraft, and their limits. 1) Using material with a low reflection The material used in building the plane have an impact on the RCS, the classical exemple being the wooden Mosquito being naturally stealthier than its counterparts of metallic construction. Using composite material, especially some specifically designed to enhance stealth is a simple way to partly reduce the RCS. 2) Hiding echo chambers and avoiding scatter points With this method, you try to hide, reduce or remove anything that could amplify the radar signal, or redirect it indiscriminately (hiding reactors, removing a maximum of sharp angles, protrusions, draining holes). The goal is not to eliminate or scatter the radar echo, but to avoid amplifying it. 3) Specifically shaping the plane to redirect the echo away from the emitting radar Here the whole point is to avoid being seen, by adopting a shape that when hit by a radar wave, will be returned away from the emitter, making the plane "invisible". Yet it's not that easy, with the first generation of shaping, the stealth was directionnally optimised, meant to reduce RCS only when seen from a particular angle. The latest generation of shaped planes are more efficient and able to reduce RCS from wider angles. But it's not perfect, as it is also optimised for some radar frequencies, and it has been demonstrated that low frequency radars coupled to large arrays of passive receiving stations (ie. one radar emits, the plane scatters the echo, but a multitude of these echoes are received bye the passive receiving stations and using triangulation, the position of the plane is determined, it has even been demonstrated using reflection of TV signal) negate most shaping. 4) Using Radar-Absorbent Material Adding material to the plane designed to "trap" the radar waves is a way to reduce RCS, unfortunately, these materials are optimised for specific range of frequencies and are mostly useless against other frequencies, with some older materials, they even acted as echo chambers, amplifying and scattering the radar signal). 5) Actively cancelling the radar signal Active echo cancellation, consisting of detecting the radar wave and reemitting a counter-wave to reduce or remove the echo is still not very well documented, and is a very difficult task as it needs to identify a large variety of signals and determine which signal to add to diminish or suppress the echo. All these factors and the fact that real numbers on the efficiency of these methods and the way to calculate their impact makes it impossible to model in a game.

So far, in terms of players sold the Blu-Ray is ahead of the game, mainly due to the PS3, in terms of movies sold, the HD-DVD is ahead by a short lead. In terms of raw capacity and technical merits, the Blu-Ray is a clear winner, in terms of costs the HD-DVD still has the advantage, the quality for both is now equivalent if not identical with some encodings. Sony has recently regretted not cooperating toward a unique standard seeing the competition as hurting both formats, especially the Blu-Ray. In all, there is so little volume, either in players or movies sold, that the figures so far can't really serve to identify a winner of the format war. The trouble is that as long as there is no clear winner, most people will hesitate before committing themselves to one format, and as long as people don't decide, there will be no clear winner. If the situation persists they will have to decide on a joint format or risk offering all the profits to multi-standard players manufacturers (and licences are not as interesting financially as having the only winning HD format).

My only grip with the 5th generation military jets is that it is a radical departure from what made military jets interesting. They once were some glamorous, the fighter pilot was something of a modern day knight; With the 4th generation, we departed from the pilot flying the plane and started toward the plane partially flying itself (yes, I do know that even before, the F-106/SAGE couple meant the pilot might end up being only a radar and weapon operator, as was the case with the MiG-23P, etc...), with he 5th generation, it's not a plane anymore, it's a weapons system. From an efficiency perspective, it might be a really good thing, but that makes them awfully boring and completely unsexy. A Sabre, a Hun, a rhino, they all have a raw quality to them, they represent something, even the Eagle manages to be interesting, but a Raptor or a F-35, they're sexy as a washing machine, an efficient, stealthy, deadly washing machine, but an appliance nonetheless. Besides it creates another problem, due to their complexity and cost, they are tailored to be built, serve for a time, be used for a few days for a low to medium intensity low to high-tech conflict and then remain mostly unchallenged for the rest of the engagement. They are not suited to a long, high intensity conflict, should they encounter some serious opposition and attrition, especially with reduced dotations, it might fast become a problem as you just can't churn out new planes to replace them as you did up until the 4th generation. While optimized for being easy to maintain and require little maintenance compared to previous generation, this is also at the cost of a maintenance infrastucture, which might be a handicap in a catastrophe scenario. Also, seen from the perspective of Boyd, they probably just are gold-plated toys unworthy of calling themselves fighters (well, at least he would have hated the F-35). :p At least Flankers are keeping the flame of the old-style jets alive.

If you are patched correctly and the F-4G is the only plane crashing, you might find the answer HERE.

At some point Japan was interested in the F-22, probably partly supported by the fact that some Air Force Generals wanted Japan to have F-22 in order to have more of these available in the region without having to battle with Congress to fund them. AFAIK this idea never went further than suggesting and evaluating it. Australia wants the F-22 because it is clear the F-35 for all it's worth won't ensure any kind of air superiority. But AFAIK the US never offered anything. England is not interested in the F-22 much, they seem to see the couple Typhoon/JSF as the future of the RAF. The F-15 "crisis" is played very tightly, on the one hand some try to dramatize the situation in order to get the Congress to approve the funding for more F-22s (hoping to get back to 350 F-22, pretexting the supposed premature ageing of the F-15 airframes), on the other hand, the USAF doesn't want to export the F-22 to minor partners before a long time and doesn't want to have a watered down variant worked on just yet, so it hopes to export F-15, new and second-hand, instead, and it's hard to do so when at the same time you are claiming internally that the airframe ages prematurely. (source : Aviation Week & Space Technology, November 12) At the same time Boeing is trying to push the F-15E+ "Super Eagle" as both a replacement for the oldest F-15 and a complement to the F-22 and F-35. (source : Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 15) The situation is even worse with the F-35, since most major partners (except some military personnel) have been kept in the dark about the latest suspension of flight tests and redesign needed. (Source : Johan Boeder) Most partners signed on the JSF program under the impression they were financing and buying planes identical to those to be used by the USAF/USN/USMC, unfortunately for them it appears they will only have watered down versions, for the cost of the "common" version. In the same manner, the civilian authorities are guaranteed that everything's alright, when the military is notified that the F-35, while on time, won't have most capacities enabled at first, with air-to-ground implemented first and air-to-air probably only available in 2015. While this won't be a major blow for some partners, some of the smallest are counting on these features, and that would also mean that the F-35 would have very limited auto-defence or multi-role capabilities at first, making some partners downright anxious. The impression that there is some momentum gained in the US in favour of the F-15E+ also signals there might be something wrong with the JSF program either related to deadlines or capabilities. Add to this the reduced support of Israel to the JSF program, the lack of enthusiasm in some circles of the Pentagon and the JSF looks like an ill-fated project.