Sheriff001

None of the allies had any love for the Soviets. Since the Soviets were perfectly prepared to stand by and see the Allies destroyed by Germany and Japan, I can understand the Allies having little regard for them. The alliance with them was purely a matter of convenience at the time. In the 20th century, human civilisation and freedom faced three great threats. In WW2, the Allies combined with one of those threats to defeat the other two. I'd say they got the "order of oeprations" pretty well right. Japan and Germany made the same fundamental mistake. They both believed that the western nations, particularly the English-speaking nations, were full of weak, complacent people, unwilling to stake their lives on principles. This belief in western (particularly Anglo) decadence seems to have caused many a tyrant to come a cropper. I call that mistake the "index mistake", because it is the mistake from which all others arose. A lack of coordination and cooperation between the armed forces of the Axis powers also significantly hampered their operations. In Japan, the Army and Navy were effectively fighting separate wars. The British, on the other hand, could place part of the British Army under the RAF's control, or part of the RAF under the Royal Navy's control, and have the whole thing work. I don't believe that leaving the Japanese to rot on the islands would have saved the US in the long run. Bypassing certain islands is certainly a reasonable approach. The reason is the dependence of the US, and the rest of the world, on oceanic trade. Leaving Japan in effective naval control of the Pacific would pose an intolerable threat to the US. The big threat is not so much a landing on the US mainland, it is the ability to dictate to the US what may or may not by imported and exported. In the face of US inaction, the Japanese may well have been able to harness the vast resources of Asia, in manpower and raw materials, to the Japanese military buildup. This would eventually give them the ability to fight the US on equal terms. eraser_tr, your take on the Zero requires a little context. It was certainly conceivable that the US or Britain could have built a fighter with the Zero's performance. Mystique aside, the Zero is nothing special. What it represents is a different set of trade offs to those made by British and American designers. These reflect design requirements, and perhaps also cultural attitudes. The Japanese sacrificed hitting power, armour, self-sealing fuel cells, and structural strength in order to achieve speed, long range, high climb rate, and agility. Apart from these factors, they represent an attitude of total emphasis on attacking. Japanese pilots were there to do the shooting, not get shot at. I've heard the Zero compared to a Samurai sword, and I think the comparison is apt. Germany's technological advances were less important during the war than is otherwise believed. For all the sophistication of their tanks, they couldn't design one that was durable in the face of the conditions present in Russia. Their production figures reflect the failure of the Germans to design their weapons for mass production. American mass production techniques (known to the Germans as "Fordism" for obvious reasons) allowed the US to take an average housewife, and make her an effective factory worker in a short time. Their early tanks were qualitatively inferior to those of many of their enemies. What made the German tank forces superior early in the war was their organisation, tactics, and training. The most prominent areas of German technological superiority were in missiles, and jet engines. Neither did them any good. Their missiles made no difference in the conduct of the war at all. Their more advanced jet engine designs (axial-flow rather than centrifugal-flow) were of no avail due to a lack of metals required to make reliable axial-flow engines. The technological advances of the Allies, in areas such as electronics, production engineering, and "soldier-proofing", were relevant and used to greatest effect. Thus, the M4 was qualitatively inferior to most of the German tanks arrayed against it ... but their numbers were sufficient to drown the Germans in Shermans. I have absolutely no time for Snailman's conspriacy theories.

It looks like a K/M fuselage with an E nose.

More RAAF Thuds Several RAAF F-105D Thunderchiefs were temporarily assigned to ARDU for nuclear testing.

CF-105 Thunderchief?

Thuds Down Under

Is there a way to get the armament selection switch to SPL WPN when I select the nuclear bomb? In real life, I presume this would activate the nuclear consent circuits.

Done, and it worked. Thanks!

I've never tried with with an AGM-12 loaded, but with Mk 82, and AIM-9 loaded, it will switch between "GUNS|AIR", "CONV BOMBS", and "MISSILES|AIR". It uses "GUNS|AIR" when the M61 is selected, regardless of whether you cycle through air to air, or air to ground weapons. Does the MAX file limit the knob to moving to certain positions?

The difference between Russia and the US is that the US may cut off your spare parts supply if you go too far, while the Russians don't give you a spare parts supply to cut off.

That is quite possibly right. The F-105 was never intended to be used as it was in fact used over North Vietnam, as a conventional strategic bomber operating in daylight, bombing from high level. If you're going to operate like that in an unstealthy aircraft, you may as well send the enemy missile crews embossed invitations to shoot you down. How the F-105 would have performed when used in its intended role, as a low level tactical nuclear strike aircraft is something we'll never know.

Again - that isn't what Kopp was writing. This isn't difficult to work out if you read it (Stipe, I suspect that you simply looked at the graphic on the first post of this thread). As has been said earlier, Kopp wrote that the F35 and F-105 are equivalents for their respective time periods. Each is similar in size, weight, performance, and general mission. Each uses the preferred method for penetrating enemy defences for their time, with the F-105 using high speed and low altitude while the F-35 uses stealth. To this extent, Kopp is absolutely right, the F-35 and F-105 are single-engined strike fighters intended to penetrate enemy defences to hit valuable targets. Kopp further postulates that, in combat, the F-35 will have similar results to the F-105 over North Vietnam. An overall examination of Kopp's writings reveal that he is a great believer in the ability of ground-based IADS to defeat air power, at least with contemporary aircraft. The fact that the North Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Serbian air defences couldn't stop the USAF and USN bombing whatever they wanted to bomb doesn't dissuade him. He does believe that there are two exceptions to this rule, the F-22 and the F-111C.

You're talking nonsense. A few posts ago, you told me that what the price of the T-50 would be, now you're giving me vague estimates. The fact is that neither you, nor anyone else know what the price will be, or if anyone will be prepared to pay it. We read exactly the same rubbish about the Su-37 back in the nineties.

The AIM-9 is a passive IR seeker. It senses the heat from an aircraft's engine exhaust, or heat induced by friction between the aircraft and outside air. You can tell that an IR seeker is locked on because of the tone it will generate. When locked on, the tone will increase in volume and pitch. With the radar-guided missiles, you need to use the radar to acquire and lock up the target before firing. You must be within all parameters before firing. With semi-active missiles (AIM-7), you must keep the radar locked on to the target until impact. Three years?!

Did you check out the warranty on your weapons? Radar guided AAMs won't launch unless you have a radar target, and to get them to track, you need to be within min-max range, and allowable steering error. Here is a cockpit shot from a CF-4E just after firing an AIM-7. The smaller circle is the allowable steering error, the dot within the circle is the steering dot. This must be inside ASE for a successful firing. The two small horizontal lines are minimum and maximum ranges. The ranges depicted here are a minimum range of 1NM and a maximum range of 13NM. The target is 10NM away. The outer circle indicates closing velocity. This is judged from the gap in the circle. Here, a closing velocity of approximately 1000 knots is indicated. Use of the accelerometer is also necessary. With virtually all older weapons, firing at more than 2G is inadvisable. The Weapon Delivery Manual written by Bob McCray has the following gap positions-closing velocities: 10:30 o'clock 450 knots opening 11:00 o'clock 300 knots opening 12:00 o'clock 0 knots 1:00 o'clock 300 knots closing 2:00 o'clock 600 knots closing 3:00 o'clock 900 knots closing 4:00 o'clock 1200 knots closing 5:00 o'clock 1500 knots closing 6:00 o'clock 1800 knots closing 7:00 o'clock 2100 knots closing 8:00 o'clock 2400 knots closing 9:00 o'clock 2700 knots closing I wouldn't go into editing the weapons until you understand the correct firing techniques, and can apply them consistently.

Bugger.

I did read the article, and the point he makes is reasonable. Both aircraft are designed for the strike mission, they are similar in size and weight, and use the penetration mode du jour (F-105: low, fast; F-35: stealth). I'd suggest that the appropriate juxtaposition is F-105/F-106 to F-35/F-22.

Very trite. We all know this. Could you please explain how this makes any difference beyond what we all already know? How could you possibly know the fly-away price of a T50?

That's more of an opinion than a fact. My opinion, which I think is better founded that yours, is that the chances of a suitable enemy for the F-22 appearing are very slim. Almost non-existent. I'd prefer facts to things you "made up". Re: Daddyairplanes' worry: I'm not so worried. It would seem to me to be a highly perverse country that sends in its Second Grade team first, and holds back the First Grade team. I don't see the F-22 getting into a turning fight with a subsonic aircraft like a MiG-15 or -17 for the same reason an F-15 wouldn't. You'd be playing your disadvantages against their advantages. It is the business of the pilot, and his commanders to pit their own advantages against the enemy's disadvantages. That is a philosophy as old as war itself.

A $60 million Su-35 hurtling to the ground in several hundred pieces is money wasted, particularly if the pilot's first indication of a trouble was his aircraft exploding. The $200 million F-22 that destroyed it sounds like better value. Although I haven't seen it myself, I think Lockheed manage have correctly spelled displays. Rather than engaging in sophistry or being disingenuous, let us consider facts. The figure you're quoting relates to Mean Time Between Maintenance, not Mean Time Between Failure. The F-22's average MBTM is 1.7 hours. The F-16C's is 1.8. The Indian Air Force has reported that it is having problems with contractor support, and spare parts. The catch in "cheaper" Russian weapons is that the warranty may as well be toilet paper. Saturn's response to Indian reports of shaft bearing failures was to tell the IAF to change their lubricant ... the shaft bearing failures continued. No, you weren't pointing that out at all. You were saying that the Su-35 would defeat the F-22 in a fight in which the F-22's advantages are defined out of existence. You can't have it both ways. If you wish to expound on this Red Flag combat, then please do.

Very sharp

The short version of that is "In the Real World, the F-22 will win". Even if one was confined to guns only, the one who sees the other first will pretty much always win. You cannot reasonably posit a situation in which the Su-37 sees the F-22 first, even on RWR. Little is known of the Su-37's dogfighting capability, the performances at airshows are just that ... performances. I see little point in a comparison between a Russian and US fighter when you deprive both of missiles, and you deprive the US fighter of AEW support, and you have both aircraft becoming aware of each other simultaneously. It is as plausible as putting asking how they'd fight underwater.

You can't rig comparisons in this manner, and expect that the results will be taken seriously. Obviously, making the assumption that the F-22 will found before it brings a weapon to bear and fires takes this out of the real world and into the realms of fantasy. Plane to plane, mano a mano hasn't been the case since World War I.

The comparison is absurd. Why would either party limit itself to guns, and how is this Su-37 going to find the F-22?