MigBuster

The Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) is requesting information describing concepts for airborne laser systems for future air dominance platforms. The emphasis of this effort is to identify potential laser systems that could be integrated into a platform that will provide air dominance in the 2030+ highly contested Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) environment. Of particular interest are laser systems that are expected to be at TRL 4 or higher by October 2014 and could be demonstrated at TRL 5 or higher by 2022. Laser and beam control systems are being investigated independent of platform in the flight regime from altitudes Sea Level to 65kft and speeds from Mach 0.6 to 2.5. Three categories of laser systems are being studied: 1. Low-power lasers for illuminating, tracking, targeting, and denying/defeating sensor threats. 2. Moderate- power laser protective weapons system. 3. High-power for laser weapons systems. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=452e761675d8c05e5599115182696694&tab=core&_cview=0

"New" Rivet Joints arrived at RAF Waddington on the 12th

Lots of photos from inside the Soviet Tu-4 (or Superfortress) http://englishrussia.com/2013/05/23/the-only-tu-4-plane-russia-has-today/

Very impressed by this last night - a must in 3D though so you can blink at all the stuff coming out of the screen at you!

PCU America (LHA-6), the fourth American warship to be named for the United States of America,[9] will be the first of the America-class amphibious assault ships for the U.S. Navy. She will be delivered in 2013, replacing USS Peleliu (LHA-5) of the Tarawa class. Her mission is to act as the flagship of an expeditionary strike groupor amphibious ready group, carrying part of a Marine expeditionary unit into battle and putting them ashore with helicopters and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, supported by F-35B Lightning II aircraft and helicopter gunships.

If that's the case then the FA-18E/F is in a heap of **** having no stealth, less range, and being somewhat slower / less agile with a few tanks and bombs- suppose it can always jettison tanks turn and run. Not convinced the F-35 needs self escort - its a new A-A paradigm in some ways (if the tech works of course) - and can use this tech edge to execute the OODA loop with lethality against anything. Anyone that uses their own material as valid sources in a reference list (See Kopp scribble) is not something to take seriously (especially when I 've already seen the content of a lot of it).

and next step would be cut out the mod folder for that install completely - then run the game and let it recreate the folders from scratch - you then need to move any files back in etc

If I was in an F-16 v either an F-22 or Su-35 (1v1) in guzzo only and I saw either were doing a lot of TVing then my chance of winning would shoot up to about 95% I reakon................ Yes in real life the F-22 is authorized to do 1 v 1 WVR combat only against close air forces like the French AF (it would appear) The F-35 might not miss that stuff - its advertised capability allows it to lock and fire at targets that are behind it even - forcing anything to go defensive. Right so whats the F-105 version of EODAS? - suppose that was the rear view mirrors

Interesting thread: Well, At Duxford's Flying Legends airshow this year, we finally got around to getting the real Horsemen to try out DCS P-51. To say they were impressed was an understatement! Ed Shipley & Dan Friedkin put the Mustang through it's paces, tried stalls, loops and compared the facts of figures of DCS to the real thing - "The accuracy is amazing". I just thought I'd share a few images of the team trying out DCS as I know a few will be interested. From what Dan & Ed said, everything they tried matched the figures they use in the real aircraft. One small discrepancy that Dan picked up on was the sensitivity of the rudder but, other than that, no other faults were mentioned by them. There are a few differences between the Mustangs that The Horsemen use and the variant modelled in the sim. DCS represents a completely stock aircraft where as there are a few changes made to the restored mounts that The Horsemen use. To begin with, none of the real pilots that we had try the sim (other than Nick Grey) could get the aircraft started. This is because, in most modern P-51s, the rear fuselage fuel tank has been removed. The Fuel cutoff valve is then removed ("it's just something else to go wrong") and the rear fuselage tank position is used as the fuel cut off position on the fuel selector. Stevo (Steve Hinton Jnr) also noticed, when doing his pre take-off checks, that the oil pressure did not drop when he fluctuated the RPM. Over the last few months, we have had Steve Hinton, Dan Friedkin, Ed Shipley, Stevo (Steven Hinton Jnr), Nick Grey & Matt Nightingale try out DCS P-51 at our events at Duxford - All have been thoroughly impressed by the level of detail that has been achieved by the Eagle Dynamics team. It's hard to disagree with them Dan was flying for a good 15 - 20 minutes and conducted his flight in exactly the same way as he would in the real aircraft I spent abit of time talking to Ed and Dan after their flight, they were both very impressed. To quote Dan "you will not get much closer, unless your in my airplane" Everything in the sim was turned on. We didnt have Track IR working as the hangar door was open and the light was interfering. We also had Steve Hinton, Steve Hinton Jr as well as a few other pilots fly the sim and they were all very impressed. Steve Hinton Jnr was a big fan and was talking about the sim quite alot over the course of both weekends. They all tried things like the neg g push, wing stalling, wing buffetting and they were impressed with each and every thing they tried to catch the sim out with. What more can we say? hehe One of the best things about the weekend was being able to speak to the real Stang pilots and compare what they thought of the sim vs the real experience. We are back in September to meet up with some of the pilots, cant wait to see what they think then! http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=111388

Crikey - lets hope things take a turn for the better from now on!

Yes I would agree - you could guess SF2 was optimised from the start for 60s Jet cannon combat and was never really tweaked when 50 cal P-51s appeared in it later. Have not fired much 20mm in DCS - have flown the A-10A/C and P-51D mainly so far - but yeah it needs a lot of work - like every other sim

Actually I would bet the F-105 would probably win a low level drag race on top speed even with a loadout :) - but then again it was designed to go fast and low for survivability. Combat has changed so much and for todays world the F-35 wins on everything else - especially the far more important aspect of SA and survivability in a modern threat environment.

AFAIK the Su-37 remains a tech demonstrator was never brought into service............ Spot on - that RAND report is another joke you should see some of the figures and it even claims the F-105 has a lower wing loading figure!

Can you just confirm C:\Users\<YOU>\Saved Games\ThirdWire\StrikeFighters2 V\Flight ? What files are you putting in it?

Shocked Streak - would expect a total newbie to read that article and take it serious............ There is no real comparison v an F-105 - or an F-4 (Any variant) The one above is akin to: F-4B Operates off a carrier F-35C Operates off a carrier Therefore F-4B = F-35C

http://web.archive.org/web/20060713154414/http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter98_99/art02.html

The 4 v 4 above sounds like the 4 v 4 F-100D v MiG-17F experience I often have in SF2 The first time I shot the the FW-190 down in a 1 v 1 the dogfight lasted 35 sodding minutes - not for the faint hearted. The P-51 doesn't take much 23mm damage I have experienced - a single thump is usually enough for a wing to fly off. In SF2 the damage seems spot on to me - and with 37mm shells coming from the MiG-17 you have to expect bad damage. - and yes starting up the P-51 is so easy there's nothing to it - taking off and landing are the hard bits!

Hadn't seen this - A full mockup of the Horton 229 built and its RCS tested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaJzKjtjZnY

Amazing stuff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z1Z-WEZZGM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1F_UJaaP1A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOXxUApaaWo

The A-6 ini should have this: [AircraftData] AircraftFullName=A-6A Intruder (64) AircraftShortName=A-6 AircraftDataFile=A-6A_DATA.ini CockpitDataFile=A-6A_COCKPIT.INI <----must be there HangarScreen=A-6A_HANGAR.BMP LoadoutImage=A-6A_LOADOUT.tga LoadingScreen=A-6A_loading.bmp LoadoutFile=A-6A_LOADOUT.INI AvionicsDLL=Avionics60.dll AvionicsDataFilename=A-6A_AVIONICS.ini UserList=A-6A_UserList.ini

Not seen this before - which pack did you download - the latest (link)? Are all the 29s like this?

Talking to a local media outlet, a Swedish Armed Forces officer said that Russian bombers practiced bombing runs to Sweden, Baltics states and Poland last week. Nothing new then. Close encounters occur quite often and some of them have much media attention, as happened in March,April, and June. The latest episode occurred in the morning of Oct. 28, when three escort planes and two Russian bombers flew in direction of the Swedish territory. The “package” was detected on the radar over the Gulf of Finland and for one hour they seemingly carried out attack runs against Poland, the Baltics – and the southern tip of Öland in Sweden. “I think the purpose was to practice various types of attacks as well as highlight the Russian presence in the southern Baltic,” Anders Persson, acting flight tactical commander on the Swedish Armed Forces said in an interview with SVT.se. “We are now seeing an increased activity of Russian strategic bombers in the area. Of course we have to follow developments and see what they’re going and what they are doing,” Persson said. Two Gripen fighter jet were scrambled to keep a close eye on the Russian planes. Even though Sweden is somehow used to such activity in the Baltic Sea area, the aggressive posture of the Russians makes the drills a bit annoying for the Swedish. “The difference is that when we practice, we do it together with a nation, we do not practice on any target in any country without the country being involved in the exercise. The Russian behavior is far more aggressive in their exercises,” Anders Persson, comments. http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/13/russian-bombers-sweden-new-attack/