MigBuster

I dont see it on there - guess we can assume thats all IrAF had at the time though - need to check.

Would love it - only 95K - a bargain!

Why don't they put relative figures and do a real comparison - oh silly me that wouldnt be news if it pertained to the actual truth. Program has cost overrun - wow tell me something new. Last I heard the F-35B was on probation for a few years - LM need to make some structural changes or something - the A and C seem to be on track. Essentially you have 3 different Jets - looks like enough of a difference to class them as the F-35, F-36, and F-37 - like you see with Flankers - suspect the single designation is to get around the "You are only having one jet" type argument! So maybe a question to ask is - would getting 3 different jets with the same capabilities by more expensive - or cheaper - you decide...........

Thats a great little video

Do you know which version this was?

Really love this series - its taken a while to get this way on DVD!

Who knows what else they have up their sleeves - obviously this makes for good publicity regardless of its capabilities. Now you will start to see posts regarding claims that western radars can detect stealth jets etc

Now thats Interesting progress!

Well it looks like you are not aware of its limitations looking at your posts - your last one seems to be an attempt at a pissing match/argument for the hell of it - and then you claim to shed some light to people on this site about the F-104(n)- thats quite an insult.

Right so the J-20......

I have got both articles thanks - that doesnt change one thing that I have said. You will notice that Walt seems to be comparing the F-104A with the J79-GE-19 which was a far better performer than the F-104G Andy flew and the F-104C used in SEA. However it still unsuitable for SEA IMO for the reasons I have already mentioned! Yes you are right - I should have been more specific - however Walt mentions the LLL profile as you have stated because I think they were training to drop Nukes (1 nuke on the centreline and 4 tanks). The SEA profile seems to have been HHH with A-A refueling - the F-104 like any jet will go much further doing HHH - but again part of what I was saying that you have missed is that the F-4 can carry more fuel and still maintain a decent loadout thus always wins for this scenario. You needed a good A-G loadout to hit targets back then. Some of that applies but as I said before as the AIM-7 got better it became a good option. Firstly the WSO was there to sort out the radar and help employ the AIM-7 - just something the F-104 could not do. the AIM-9 was easier to employ yes - but both had appalling hit rates overall - maybe as a bad as 10 - 15% so the missiles were bad we all know that. However - a breakdown of actual kills with USAF F-4s in 1966-68: AIM-9B = 21 AIM-7D = 2 AIM-7E = 18 Gunpod = 10 AIM-4D = 5 and 1972: AIM-7E = 15 AIM-7E-2 = 14 AIM-9E = 6 AIM-9J = 3 M61A1 = 6 and what I said is true - the AIM-7 was still a useful option the F-104 didnt have - end of!! Yes in theory - and no doubt in ACM - but in real life their combat record over SEA says it all - the F-4 was more useful in more areas - the F-104 was a good energy fighter - but when it got to prove it they lost to MiG-19s. I have a very hard time believing the NVAF were actually deterred by the F-104 - this seems to be VERY wishful thinking. In Istvan Toperczers research on the NVAF he doesnt mention that if the enemy jet was ID's as an F-104 they had to turn and run for their lives! Again this depends on the versions you are comparing - and probably needs EM charts. No Doubt the F-104A-19 had an advantage over all the F-4s, but the F-104C Vs F-4D would have been a different story. btw where is Streakeagle - cant believe I'm defending his crappy F-4

Jeez - where did you get that from??: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f104_9.html Figures I have F-104C with full external fuel (4 drop tanks) Range = 1500 miles F-4E with full external fuel (3 drop tanks) Range = 1885 miles Now in a real life Tactical scenario the F-4 could carry external drop tanks and still maintain a good A-A and A-G loadout - something the F-104C could never do. It seems to have been restricted to 2 AIM-9s on the wingtips only because the AIM-9 seeker heads got damaged if they were carried under the fuselage. The F-4 also had the advantage of the WSO and when the AIM-7s got better another way to fight. Point being the F-104 weps loadout with or without tanks was hopeless. In regards to ACM they were actually pretty similar - to quote Andy Bush: Having flown both the F-4 and the F-104, I would tend to favor the F-4 in a turning fight...partly because of its better turn below 400KIAS and partly because of its two man crew. Other than that, the two jets shared many similarities. (Note he is talking about the F-104G and F-4E (non-slatted) at Top Gun) Err yes thats what I said above - with high stick forces it becomes harder to move non powered ailerons! - some MiG-17s had powered ailerons so this analysis may not have applied to all MiG-17s in service. Only thing to do would be to get some charts on the MiG-17F and F-5A and compare - if possible.

At last - real life action - great find

This is useful if the Foxbats are going after a target - but not so great in this case - were they running for Iran? Israel claim a few MiG-25 fighters which were lower level and seem to be head on type shots. It was the R version flying high they couldnt get - but they claim to have damaged one with a Hawk which was placed on a mountain under the usual flight path. An F-15 could then shoot it down. By accounts the F-14 was successful in stopping MiG-25R overflights - they had no counter apart from turning and out running the missile shot it seems.

Not too sure on that - this might be more true of the 1991 conflict after the 1980-1988 experience with Iran. Based on Tom Coopers research the F-14s used every weapon available to them (he lists most weapons kills)and had to merge on many occasions. In his accounts taken from pilot interviews you would have to conclude that only the MiG-25s knew they were being fired at (they turned around when locked up). The F-14 could pick up a target and fire - which highlights the importance of SigInt -you dont have much chance if you don't know its coming.

Interesting potentially a new bomber and a threat to cancel the F-35B, more new Super Hornets for the Navy and this: Gates also announced decisions on a number of controversial aspects of the new aircraft. It will be nuclear-capable — some had argued for this, on the grounds that radiation-hardening is relatively inexpensive at the design stage and costly to retrofit, while others had opposed it because it brings the bomber within the scope of arms-control discussions. Gates also says that it would be “optionally” piloted rather than unmanned, and that it would make use of existing technologies to speed development. erm not a fan of this - assuming this means nuclear powered - Manned or unmanned - one will still crash surely

Wow - has there been an army with a worse combat record!

Happy Birthday

If you see here which is the Have Drill/Ferry pres: http://area51specialprojects.com/video/havedrill_tactical.swf click to go through the presentation - its compared at 350KIAS and 450 KIAS (me not checking!). If you have anything on the 250KIAS then Id be pleased to see it - the MiG-17s wings are still swept back so having a serious doubt is not good enough. The MiG-17 did have a hydraulic system - but early versions did not have powered Ailerons from what I remember - hence why it had to fly in a straight line over a certain speed. But GRViper has provided information from manuals from Soviet MiG-17Fs having all powered flight controls from a point in time. Unfortunately the range and weapons load of the F-104 made the F-4 (with better avionics and extra set of eyes) far more suitable for their needs - as pretty much proved over SEA itself - and probably a major factor in the USAF ditching the F-104 from that conflict and from service rather quickly.

hmmm interesting will give that a try. Yes good point on the Lightning missiles - they are pretty good - no doubt TK feels people are happier when the missile hits things.

Although lightweight the F-5 and F-104 are not really comparible fighters - which is why I believe it was mentioned by Lexx above. The F-104 like the F-4 relies on energy only and its best manoeuvrability comes at high speed - (say 450+kts) for example The F-5A had comparible horizontal turn performance to the MiG-17 in the low speed (say under 400kts) - but I dont believe it was really an energy fighter - especially if compared to the F-104 (theres a great article by Andy Bush on F-104Gs Vs F-5Es from when he was at Top Gun) The F-5A had no radar- the F-5E was larger, faster, had a radar and was a true A-A fighter - pretty sure neither could get near the F-104/F-4/F-15/F-16 regarding energy and speed performance (thats why they tried to do an F-5G/F-20).

Assume you got the LODs, bmps, inis etc - Where are you trying to put them - in an older SF2 patch level game?

Not personally this any use? http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa7.html

The F-14B/D was useful (would never say it was the best) regarding A-A because it could use speed AND could dogfight when it was not fully loaded. It needed to do this in its time because there was zero guarantee of it picking up enemy jets on radar and actually hitting them with any of its missiles - and needed all of its bases covered. Having read a lot on John Boyd the past year I would have to say the above term is truly ignorant - so heres a nice thread with a real pilots thoughts on that: from http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8478-start-0.html

Fully merged? Is that WOV + WOE Or do you actually have SF2E etc - this is the SF2 forum