column5

The bump-mapping is gorgeous. DanW, I beg of you, release some more shots from F-14 showing what you guys are doing in the graphics department!!!

You fail to understand the issue. The entire border region with Mexico is a de facto haven for drug cartels and other groups operating outside of any governmental jurisdiction. In other words, there is no government there whose territory we would be invading. On top of that, the Mexican government actively facilitates the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants into the US, to the extent that they actual publish official government pamphlets instructing Mexicans on how to enter the US illegally. Think of the Barbary pirate states in relation to Spain and you'll have a better idea of what is going on.

I think the fence is a poor solution for a number of reasons. If I had the power, I would do the following: 1. Require a form of national ID in order to vote in Federal elections. The primary reason that leftist politicians have ignored the issue is that they want the illegals as a voting block. The ultimate goal of the left is amnesty which they believe will secure them anywhere from 16 to 20 million new Democrat voters. The Republicans have failed to act on the matter due to their general cowardice and belief that the legal Hispanic community will turn on them if they take a strong stand on the issue (the left would play the race card of course). Taking the illegal vote off of the table would clean this part of the issue up. 2. Assign National Guard units to the border to interdict the drug trade. Declare an operational zone that extends 20 miles into Mexico and dare the Federales to oppose us. The Guard units would not be there to stop immigration, but would obviously be able to notify the border patrol of any activity they observe. 3. Expand and equip the border patrol to do their job effectively. Create clear and reasonable guidelines on when and how agents can use force to defend themselves or apprehend illegals. 4. Finally, impose strict fines and possibly prison sentences for people and companys that employ illegal immigrants. Make the cost of employing illegals so high that American labor looks like a better deal. Cut off all government services to illegals except for emergency medical treatment and food and water during their deportation--basically deincentivize them.

Yeah.

Well...just to put it in perspective...the border is so out of control that anyone who wanted to enter the country to engage in espionage or terrorism could do so pretty easily be they PLA or not. Ironically, I think it would actually be harder for them to get into Mexico in the first place than it would be to get from Mexico to the US due to Mexico's much more stringent immigration enforcement.

LOL, leave it to the lib to post the first stupid sh*t in an otherwise good discussion. So brainwashed...

Acquired.

LOL, well I understand the sentiment but... Like most Americans I love the Mexican people and their culture--the food, the drinks, music, etc. I want a large number of people from Mexico to be able to obtain work visas and US citizenship every year. I just don't want the border to be an open seive. Anyone who enters our country without permission is a criminal and should be treated as such.

[Edit: I don't think that] Erik was advocating for the border fence. Its a stupid idea and something that establishment types like McCain point to as evidence that the government is doing something about the massive problem we have with illegal immigration, when in fact members of both parties have been facilitating it. If we had an independent watchdog media, this would be the biggest political scandal in US history. But we don't. Anyway, the man to try and help is J.D. Hayworth who is runing against McCain in the Republican primary. He is a strong conservative and former US Representitive from Arizona. I have donated to him and strongly reccomend that anyone interested in the future of the country help him defeat McCain. http://www.jdforsenate.com/

Modern problems... http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0506101tsa1.html

Holy sh*t I survived another year! Thanks guys, the comraderie on this site means a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2D_Skyshark

Damn it BLTDAN, stop giving out bad infos! NF5 is not on the horizon, mainly because I've exhausted myself on the current gen sims and am low on motivation right now for personal reasons. However, we have a new generation of TW sims announced, with F-14 being the first. Assuming there is European-themed sim built on the new technology, there will probably be an NF5 for it.

Its wonderful how history repeats itself over and over in military aviation... Vietnam...immediate need for the Skyraider Cold War...immediate need for the A-10 Today...immediate need for the Tucano No matter how much technology advances there is always the need for simple, reliable, relatively inexpensive aircraft.

Individual anecdotes don't serve either side in this debate. For the historian, primary sources are often the most problematic because it is nearly impossible for a person who experiences an event first hand to report on it objectively. Its human nature. In this case, we have two guys saying (and I paraphrase) that their side beat the other side 100% of the time. Clearly, that cannot be true. Another source that we can't rely on is the outcome of structured training engagements at schools like Top Gun. In a training scenario, if the student does everything right according to the doctrine and the engagement is coming down to a test of raw pilot skill, then the instructor is obliged to let the student win to reinforce the efficacy of the doctrine. If the student is making mistakes, the instructor is obliged to exploit those mistakes and win in order to graphically illustrate the result of deviation from the doctrine. So these engagements do not have much bearing on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft being flown.

I personally don't have the experience to answer that question, but both the US Navy and Air Force had determined that the paper advantages of a larger missile load and BVR capabilities were not adequate to the tactical situations faced in Vietnam. Both services created specialized schools and units to teach pure ACM, even going so far as to set up the Red Eagles secretly flying captured Soviet aircraft as adversaries. Both services then incorporated these lessons in their new aircraft: the F-14 and F-15 were both large aircraft but ACM was taken into account in the design process where it was not when the Phantom was designed. (As an aside, note that the F-15A is a single-seat aircraft, perhaps indicating that the USAF did not see the benefits of the second crew member that some are promoting here). Then, to supplement the large fighters both services introduced lightweight fighters in the form of the F-16 and F/A-18 which possessed dogfighting capabilities superior to anything in the US inventory since the F-86.

I'm glad we agree that the F-8 had a slight advantage over the F-4 in ACM then, which is what I and others have been saying since the start of this thread and the other one, and what you just described above. Basically an advantage in maneuverability (probably including turn performance as you have described, but also roll rate and other factors) as well as weapons system better optimized for close-combat (guns and IRMs, rather than IRMs and medium-range SAHMs). Smaller, less visible, etc. which again lend an advantage in close-combat as Top Gun A-4s demonstrated for years. Better overall handling qualities and safety margins in maneuvering flight. Anyway, since we agree, I'd like to throw in some historical perspective for the benefit of the thread showing why this came to be. Many of you already know this and I'm not trying to be pedantic, just throwing the info out for those that don't know. As jet aircraft took over the carrier decks, the Navy defined three types of fighter: the day fighter which was primarily intended to counter enemy fighters while escorting attack aircraft, performing fighter sweep type missions and to a limited degree, defending the fleet. The F-8 is the penultimate example of this type of aircraft, with the F11F falling into the same category. The general-purpose fighter was a broader category encompasing aircraft like the F9F which while technically fighters, were more adept in the attack role. Finally the all-weather fighter was intended primarily as an interceptor and fleet-defense aircraft, as represented by the F3D, F4D and F3H among others. The reason for these various types all under the "fighter" umbrella was the fact that technology simply had not advanced to the point where a single aircraft could reasonably fullfil all three mission requirements, which were significantly different. Until the Phantom. The aircraft that became the F-4 started as the F3H-4 (IIRC), an improved version of the F3H Demon around 1955. The program would morph into the AH for a time, which was proposed to fulfill a Navy requirement for an attack aircraft, and then finally to the F4H. Many design iterations occurred, and at one point the aircraft was to have removable nose sections from the cockpit forward that could be changed out to reconfigure the aircraft for several different missions. Multi-mission capability was clearly one of McDonnell's goals, but the Navy eventually chose to build the aircraft as the all-missile armed fleet defense fighter it had been seeking since the F6D studies. As we all know, in the late 1950s the dogfight was declared a thing of the past, and so the F4H was designed without consideration for the old day fighter mission. So, as costs and complexity rose, the Navy whittled its fighter programs down from at least half a dozen in the mid 1950s to just two: the F8U day-fighter, and the F4H all-weather interceptor with nuclear and conventional attack capabilities. Training in the two fighter communities was very different: F-8 pilots were trained at the Fleet Air Gunnery Unit and concentrated on close-combat, while the F-4 crews foces almost entirely on intercepts and medium-range missile engagements. The rest of the story is well-known, with the experience in Vietnam highlighting the need for a renaissance in ACM training resulting in the establishment of Top Gun, which taught pilots how to use the F-4, and later the F-14, to best advantage over smaller, lighter, more maneuverable opponents...like the F-8.

Personally, I feel that the TW Crusader was a little undermodeled and built the TMF version with that in mind. I would have to re-evaluate it in the current version of the game to make any sort of judgement. I will say that it was designed for Hard flight model mode, so if you are playing on Normal it will very likely be overdone.

Wow, all of that to get all the way back around to what I and others suggested in the first place: the F-8 should have a slight advantage over the F-4 when engaged in ACM. Hmmm.

Thing is, having known streakeagle on the forums for many years, I know perfectly well that he knows better than most other hobbyists what the strengths and weaknesses of the F-4 are. I can understand wanting to defend one's favorite aircraft (I do the same with the F-14) but I don't understand where he is coming from on this--next he will claim that the A-4 was no more nimble than the Phantom.

You need to go do some research on the US Navy's concept of a day fighter in the 1950s versus an all-weather or general purpose fighter. The F-8 was designed from the start to engage enemy fighters in close combat. That said, speed was king at the time the Crusader was being developed and it does sacrifice maneuverability when compared to aircraft like the F-86. However you keep veering from the original point which is simply that in a comparison between the F-4 and F-8, with all else being equal, the Crusader will have an advantage in terms of maneuverability. I know you love the Phantom but it is not, and never was, perfect. Many contemporary aircraft had advantages over it in certain regimes of flight, but none had the overall high degree of versatility that made it famous.

Soon as I find my flight manual DVDs, I will be happy to oblige you. Looking at a hard copy F-4J flight manual last night, it had very detailed information on turn rate and radius at various speeds. It will be an interesting comparison because the turn rate of the Phantom at various speeds is not outstanding, to say the least.

Its interesting information of course but it doesn't really change the fact that in a straight comparison between the two aircraft, the F-8 comes out as the better optimized for ACM--which shouldn't come as any surprise since that is what it was designed for.

I can't buy into this particular statement. The F-8 has greater agility and generally viceless handling qualities at all speeds above stall in its favor. Over a large number of engagements, with equally competent pilots in the F-8 and F-4, I would expect the F-8 to emerge with a slight advantage in kills. Of course there is no way to prove that definitively so we will have to agree to disagree.