MigBuster

Only photo I have the code is obscured by a folding wing - but that states is was VF-213 also

Nothing wrong in encouraging you to look for credible sources of information though. Even a forum with knowledgeable people can sometimes provide wrong answers because they couldn't be bothered to check. and when I say credible - that does not include the Media!

You also see it written sometimes that Guns were also left off interceptors because they didnt think the pilots would want to get so close to bombers with nuclear arms - whether that was really in their thinking - not sure .

Go to Options -> Gameplay then change the simulation difficulty level or customise it

Yes - but not with any accuracy if you are using MK-xx dumb bombs - One problem being the ground height is always changing - although I think the bombs wont be affected by wind in SF so you might get fairly close with practise and by rippling lots of them.

And more A-A refueling assets needed for more jets ...etc F-104s payload - maybe okay for CAS - but not for targets up North. The F-104 could strafe with guns even if its bombs miss. F-4s cruise speed was still adequate. Neither missile was designed for Dogfighting - the Later AIM-7E-2 was improved for this - as Ive already said. AIM-9B was only useful in a straight 6 sneak situation as you have said - but its reliability really wasnt that much better than the AIM-7. The 2nd man really helped with employing the AIM-7 (have said this before!) The AIM-7 is a useful option because it gave the enemy something else to think about - they knew an F-4 did not have to get very close or on its 6 to kill them - this shaped their tactics - without a good RWR (that could detect the F-4s radar) there was always a possibility of them being fired upon. Imagine being a MiG pilot with that feeling! Hardly - only a few squadrons actually flew with the pod - the Navy never bothered (after a very brief trial )actually - even in 72 This romantic notion you have of the F-104 dogfighting over the North is nice - but wrong at this range. Over the North with limited fuel - any thoughts of prolonged period in afterburner going after things with guns as a primary weapon is off. What so you think you have the whole sky to play with at any altitude - like at a test range! Like the F-105 it could have hosed down MiGs that didnt know it was coming - but trying to get parameters against something that knows you are there with those weapons is not practical in an F-104 with those fuel limits and that manoeuvrability. The effort and energy spent compared to firing a missile is enormous - not to mention the diminished SA that ensues while you go gallivanting around the country. Yes there were dogfights with F-4s and F-8s (mostly AIM-9 kills) - but you would want to avoid knife fights if possible in that environment (ask any pilot if they prefer knife fights!!) - particularly if you are supposed to be Escorting others. . VPAF jets were caught unaware in a lot of the Kills actually Whatever.... You have still not provided anything new or any valid reasons for using the F-104 over the F-4 (after the period it was withdrawn )in North Vietnam. On Paper the F-104 should have been a better A-A fighter in the early period - however A-A was only a very limited part of the SEA conflict - and I have seen nothing to make me think it would have faired better at long range escort. MiGs would still have shot it up the 6 and zoomed past it to shoot F-105s up the 6 in slashing attacks as they did with the F-4s. I still feel the F-4 was better suited to the many other areas of combat required in this environment - and when the VPAF gained strength, better missiles and tactics (i.e TopGun) and an F-4E helped improve things for 1972. The F-4 should have been designed with a gun - but wasnt. The F-104 would have no doubt been more suitable in some other types of conflicts. This is the last post from me on the subject - apologies for going OT - adios

Happy Birthday Veltro - you da man!

Haha - brilliant!!

Glad he's okay still - good luck to him Did you tell him to polish his boots!!

I can certainly see why you dont understand the significance. Despite the initial argument - the argument it went on to was the F-4 V F-104 over SEA. Dont agree - 2 JDAMs are fine yes - you stand a chance of hitting the target - 2 M117s/Mk8x unguided bombs is not. More bombs means potentially more targets and bigger targets also back then Really - where?? - I am a big fan of his and have read a lot about him - his main concern was A-A combat until he moved onto his manoeuvre warfare thinking etc. Where the **** did I claim that???? - I said the AIM-7 was a useful option - and it was mostly used in visual engagement due to ROE etc. Figures show the AIM-9 wasnt all that more reliable in reality - and the AIM-7 was all aspect. I wouldnt compare the F-8 with the F-104 - different fighters and circumstances which we wont discuss here I know and I agree - however despite the F-4 not having a gun it just was not the complete disaster I used to think it was (like you do now) WTF!!! over North Vietnam - pretty useful - I give up!!! Yes - just like one engaged with only A-G ordinance unless Escorts help you out. Where do you get this impression North Vietnam was swarming with MiGs?? - plenty of F-4s bombed targets then stayed on CAPs Yes I know - do you want the figures - So where did I say I was against having a gun??? Thats because you dont want to - funny that - there are plenty of people on here who have more knowledge on the subject than you assume you do: Quote you: I'm just trying to shed a bit of light on issues that have been written about the 104 that are plain wrong.

Does he mean this? http://www.f-16.net/news_article4281.html or maybe promoting Aviation week!

Ive never seen the issue before - so unless someone has had something similar its not that easy to fix - there are no step by step instructions - the problem is with either the disk or there is something wrong with your Windows install - its gone beyond what I can practically tell you on here - best to get a friend or someone with Windows knowledge(i.e. knows what the registry is) to look at your actual PC. To check the disk ask someone to install it on their PC then you will know.

Yes very nice thanks

Assuming Windows isnt porked look around to see if there are any threads on this like here: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3050244/F4_AF_Install_issue.html#Post3050244

So you uninstalled WOE You deleted the WOE folder You then restarted and installed WOE again Then you installed the 2008 patch to the correct folder/path? Again it might not let you write to WOE if you installed it in Programs Files - only SF2 games will work in those folders! Make sure you are signing on with a admin account also

Maybe the flight model if other jets work okay - it could be getting too slow and then when trying to pull up inducing the F-101 pitch up problem which would cause a stall and crash (well on the hard FM).

Where are you installing it to now? Have you ever got that CD to run properly?

Well said JM

Well just like the US now - they had to make the best of what they had at the time! - Iraq didn't have Stealth bombers - slight concern when using radar as a primary means of detection - not so great if it only detects it 10 miles out max.

The F-15 AWACs hey - good luck with that idea! - so basically they are hoping the J-20 is about as stealthy as an F-5!

Yes a good observation Iraq had 8 years real combat experience - and MiG-29As (not quite the 150 on order!!) - it was certainly hyped up to be nightmare!

This was a war in Europe (troubles started in 1991) - it was NATOs responsibility to end it - and they did (after a bit of faffing around) - the area is now peaceful.

Right so you are unable to install the game it looks like. I would say - Do not install the game in Program Files or Program Files(x86) these are protected areas in Win 7 . So - above you are trying to install to C:\Program Files(x86)\...... Install the game to another folder like C:\Games\Falcon4AF\ and try it.

Oh - They have killed the link already

It highly possible that it could happen - might even be just a border engagement without any war actually going on. Amazing to think that it wasnt long ago the J-20 and T-50 were paper airplanes that wouldnt see the light of day....ever - and there was no point having 5th gen jets etc - at least I think thats how some of the really good arguments went - pah :yes: