MigBuster

More information on Red Flag in this article from Air International if anyone's interested...........looks like Draken were up with A-4s as aggressors also! F-35A Red Flag Debut AIR International March 2017 pp6.pdf

One post has been deleted...........yours and you know why. If your entire contribution to this site now consists of you popping up to troll threads then expect to be treated accordingly. There are other forums such as Key Pubs that cater for people like you on a daily basis....you will be most welcome there.

From the address to congress they really went for it on the red side with as stated countermeasures and advanced tactics...they can also respawn sometimes right next to a blue flyer :) So not just red air but integrated high end defence setup at the same time.....49 advanced SAMs for 51 bombs dropped is pretty eye watering considering the type of SAMs they simulate and have access to. So no surprise it did so well because that was what it was built for after all going to places 4/4.5 +++ etc can't access it appears. The figures are dependent on the setup....and could improve..............back in the early 80s in a different world USAF F-16As racked up 80:1 against F-4s and Lightnings acting as MiG simulators and also hit all the ground targets (was primary AG exercise) Missions or sorties? They lost 7 in 207 sorties as the address to congress reveals. Where are the specifics of each of those missions? (ac/type/threats/mission/EW used etc). As the USMC guy states though exercises already run............ you can do a similar thing with a lot more 4.5Gen aircraft if you are happy losing half of them in the process.

My box set for the complete season two has 6 DVDs and Dogfights of the Future is the sole one on disk 6.

Probably try putting up the graphics settings in game for a start.

If your decals are in Object\Decals\F-4B_67\USNVF161\d then this is incorrect: FilenameFormat=F-4b/161/d/bbun Since you renamed a folder just simply change each statement in that ini file to account for the change: FilenameFormat=F-4b/USNVF161/d/bbun

The Vf-161 skin must still have a decals ini file (open in Notepad) that will tell you where it is looking (path) for the decals..... In SF2 decals go in the Decals folder..overview here in step 2: http://combatace.com/topic/44026-converting-older-planes-to-work-in-sf2-%E2%80%93-a-basic-guide-by-migbuster/

You are using Intel HD5500 Graphics built into the CPU? (which CPU)............. I am surprised you can run 1.5. Recommended for 2.0: Recommended system requirements: OS 64-bit Windows 7/8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+; RAM: 16GB; Hard disk space: 30 GB; Video: NVIDIA GeForce GTX780 / ATI R9 290 DirectX11 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation. The 16GB of RAM is essential..........8GB really struggled using 1.5 it was stuttering and running out of memory...........your issue looks like Graphics hardware. There may be some file tweaks to take out some of the changes to 2.0 on EDs forums.

If you don't have the Campaign customiser you will need to extract ini files and do it the old fashioned way..... should mostly still apply. http://combatace.com/topic/44798-adding-aircraft-to-campaigns-in-sf2/

What are your system specs?

This one with 8 parts?

For sure...........as long as they are fired within the missile and the radar parameters of the guiding aircraft and the target is cooperative. When I say cooperative, flying straight and level like the typical bomber they were designed to be fired against is a good example. As for Chaff......well it was proven quite effective in Vietnam against fire control radars....the radar and missile technology here (mostly pre solid state) was very limited and primitive compared to even 1991 DS (let alone today) and didn't have the processing power to filter out Chaff...so radars usually just saw a valid target. As for parameters..........in game as a rule with aircraft without lookdown radar (like a lot in the 60s/70s) you should be getting well under the target (not level) for SARH missiles. Not sure about the pack but as an example the MiG-25PDS used by Iraq had by accounts the same radar type originally in the Soviet MiG-25P. This was not a Pulse Doppler radar and thus had very limited look down capability (can't filter out the ground return)..........and the real thing couldn't even distinguish targets at all below 500 mtrs. One thing that was in the game from the start was a degree of missile unreliability which was a very big part of Vietnam although TK never implemented it fully. What I mean is all missiles had a terrible reliability rate in Vietnam and big part of this was due to handling and weather.....the technology was too fragile, meaning hung missiles, missiles that drop off without the rocket firing, missiles that go stupid in flight and some AIM-7 types had a tendency to not guide and prematurely detonate. These last 2 are in game but hung missiles and no motor fires were likely seen as a step too far.

Still got that Jewel case as well ................ahh those were the days dreaming at what the future may bring.

They were replaced by SF2 and SF2 Vietnam respectively....both of which do currently work on the latest Win 10 (64) okay without doing much at all (for me)...sadly the latest builds are stuck in 2013 and TK only officially supports them on Win 7.

In the book the Iraqi pilot (Dawoud) clearly states he fired an R-40RD which was an upgraded variant of the R-40 from the late 70s I understand and came into service with the PD/PDS. Even with Soviet test fire data it would be unlikely you would get an accurate picture because of all the other factors beside the missile that occur in combat...........the disparity between test and combat performance regarding technology of this era was well and truly demonstrated in the 60s/70s.

Hello It's been a while since we last emailed you so we wanted to get in touch to give you a quick round-up of the CAP2 developments over the past few weeks. Depending on where you have been following us you may already be aware of some elements. Latest version We are now at v809.1 which is currently live in the Beta and VR Beta channels and will transition to the default branch ASAP. As well a couple of crash fixes, general bug squashing and copious minor improvements, the following are present in this build. Steam launch options for 2D, OpenVR & Oculus. New carrier with animated elevators, deck crane and deck tugs. Air to Air refuelling - KC767 tanker with realistic hose physics. You can check out the full details and over at the dev blog We've also added several new screenshots and videos to our website What's next? Further v809 updates will include populated target ranges, updated MFD & radar displays together with RCS (Radar Cross Section) logic. Cockpit updates are progressing well. Aside from modelling one of the major updates will be the mirror reflections. You'll be able to specify varying levels of reflection fidelity plus we're considering adding adjustable mirrors. Automatic support for Thrustmaster MFD Cougar panels is also on the way. Have a great weekend! Kind Regards Sim155 Ltd

Northern Lightning was one: http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/931394/f-35a-continues-fifth-generation-tradition-of-air-superiority-against-legacy-ai http://pulsegulfcoast.com/2016/09/f-35-shows-superiority-legacy-aircraft You don't need to provide any current pilots having serious concern over F-35 AA performance because you probably cannot . Not really the answer I was looking for...........there is a slew of tech data released on the XL from NASA that will tell you all about it............the lead engineer on the program is easily contactable.........there are ("shock horror") industry pros available who know a lot more than you. (No offence but you sound like you are siloed on the airliner side of things) You have missed the point...could F-4s and Buccs operate from the ski jump through deck cruisers? Real great the F-4s could CAP from Ascension however despite the compromises you keep highlighting the SHAR was the only jet that could do the job at the time and it did a great job. A lot of people saw the value in the concept and ASTOVL was put down in the late 70s.....this work eventually went directly into JSF (F-35B). So sticking a buddy pod on the SH makes it a great tanker does it , and the F-35 despite it's far superior sensor suite cant perform any type of Fast FAC role you state?. The notion that the SH was ever the best fleet defender despite it's compromised design is a good one.........and again the F-35C is looking superior. There has been mismanagement and likely money lost that is clear but no one in the industry is surprised a cutting edge IT project of this undertaking is over budget and delayed..this is hardly unexpected. The F-35 is not the first program and wont be the last to have flaws but the taxpayer has ended up with what appears to be a very sound end result that has believe it or not learnt from some past failures such as the TFX (According to an otherwise highly critical USN case study from 2008). There is plenty out there if you want to look...the official Danish comparison even stuck the F-35 as cheaper to operate over the projected lifetime. There was some contention over that because Boeing later claimed the the SH is only a 6000 hour design when used on carriers but has more life used on land. You don't need to provide anything to back up anything you have said...............mainly because you can't in most cases and are clearly not going to bother anyway. You have provided next to nothing to this discussion to demonstrate how the SH (despite being a great product) provides any real value to the taxpayer over the F-35. If you think you are being clever by putting in little digs as you have done since your first post in this thread to go with the many assumptions and falsehoods already discussed and debunked time and time again then I guess you like digging your own grave.

The XL is a slightly stretched F-16 with a larger wing is it...........no it wasn't ........that is no different to me stating the SH is a Legacy with stretched and enlarged wings etc............. instead of throwing out wild assumptions perhaps you need to do a bit more research on it. Yes they have participated in exercises so far will need to check which ones. I am well aware of the factors in the Falklands war thanks so no need to keep bringing up mute points like a better AEW capability....while still denying how well the SHAR did under the circumstances. The SHAR was modified after the conflict to try and mitigate some of those issues. I noted what you had said............sorry but the P-51 / F-4 / F-14 had training support and logistics setup before they went into history.....how is that a valid argument for clinging onto the past. Apparently saving some pennies now but risking the entire future on what is really the past (the SH). You are wrong....the F-35 is clearly a best shot at providing what might be needed for the future not the past and might have tried to cover all bases. ......... but still apparently does everything better than the SH E/F in its supposed primary role. Boeing (you guys) had a shot at this and were even further behind with the X-32............so are now left to try and flog a few warmed over aircraft that despite these claims you make (that no one else in the industry seems to agree with you on). On the one hand dismissing stealth and on the other trying to shove warmed over F-15/18 with claims on how much the RCS has been reduced........funny. You could argue for keeping the Growler variant......but according to (just) you, because it is just a collection of boxes and pods you could easily just stick it all onto another platform!! You are desperately trying to make out these supposed compromises are somehow major issues and totally ignore the fact that the services provided the requirements for it in the first place that LM have worked to. Your current spin seems to be that LM got a load of money and gave us this!...........hey why not waste the money on our slightly warm Boeing stew instead. The only possible reason Trump would advocate seeing if Boeing can come up with a comparable SH (which will never exist ) was to frighten LM to get the cost down even further below the SH unit cost. Which ever way you spin it or whatever you think the USN will try to upgrade it in the future the SH is not good enough for the overall cost for the future. F-35 was designed with internal stores and fully integrated sensor fusion and very low RCS from the very start............you cannot and will never get anywhere near that or its growth potential sorry.

This is the USAF take on this (AIR FORCE MAGAZINE Mar 2016): Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III has said on numerous occasions the shortage of F-22s means the Air Force will rely on the F-35 to achieve air superiority in future conflicts much more than originally planned. Even though the F-35 was to be a multirole jet and not a dedicated dogfighter, Anhalt said it will be superior to the F-15 in the air-to-air regime.

I love the EF / Typhoon...........kinda similar to what the F-16XL might have been but sadly the participating countries never really had the enthusiasm to make it cutting edge....low volume very high cost.........and still soldiers on with an old MSA radar here although the later tranches have been given AG capability. Did Germany ever get IRST on their EF-2000s?. As far as the UK is concerened hopefully it will be lethal used alongside the F-35 with the new ways of doing things that will enable.

Can you provide a quote from a current F-35 pilot worrying about missing this extra wing area and perceived lack of horizontal turn rate in a realistic A-A exercise please? Being an aerospace engineer (Boing related by any chance?) doesn't make you an authority on what is actually important in a combat aircraft in 2016 or the near future considering what has been discussed so far. In terms of kinetic metrics like acceleration and turn rate which seem to be your priority metrics for A-A a USN pilot who flies both puts the SH about equal with the higher thrust FA-18C. I'm sure there were positives about the FA-18A procurement but going with your line of reasoning it was compromised and could have been a lot better. There are a ton of positives the F-35 brings..that you cant even bring yourself to admit can you! The FAA didn't have F-4Ks and the Ark Royal at the time of the Falklands so what I stated still stands regardless of what you want to dream about. Politics or whatever determined the way the force went and the only fixed wing jet that could do the job was the Harrier simple as. Again this alternate reality about the SH being good value when everything shows it representing extremely poor value considering the published cost to real performance ratio......can you provide something! anything! (Are the JDAM SHs drop on the 3rd world cheaper as well?) Retrofitting avionics...well you might get far if you chuck enough money at it.......and the politics allow it. Just because you can assume it can be done doesn't mean anyone is stupid enough to spend that money on an obsolete aircraft. Thus F-22 as is publically known performs functions combined with its other attributes that are unique and the F-35 will likely do it better in some respects. So you think the F-16V being touted has the internal space and structural design to carry EODAS/EOTS/BARRACUDA do you....and still retain enough internal fuel............... With the F-16ES (Enhanced Strategic to you) they tried to internalise both LANTIRN pods and I'm certain today they could do it............but the point is mute...who is going to spend the money on an airframe clearly at the end of its life with an RCS the size of the moon when carrying all that external stuff. You should know this just like with your beloved Hornet external stores vastly reduce and compromise performance including range, acceleration, cruise etc etc. Why do you think the SH was more radical redesign than the XL............?

F-35 Pilots have flown 4/5 Gen (A-10 to F-22) and likely don't give a **** about having bigger wings............because those in the know probably get it by now. You are right the FA-18A is a good example of a jack of all trades master of very little that was compromised by being designed as a LWF and used in a different role........didn't stop it being an exceptional aircraft though did it. The redesign to the SH was nearly as radical as the F-16XL to make it fit its role better and had some similar goals such as better high AoA handling and reduced RCS. Notice they were happy to have pretty much the same performance as the FA-18C (somewhat less than the F-35A)........but unfortunately couldn't add in all the sensors, fuel and RCS shaping to remain relevant. Super Hornets are not as cheap to procure as you like to think..........the point is mute anyway as already stated. Regardless of these compromises the Sea Harrier still performed when it had to despite the perceived lack of kinetic ability and payload from those scratching their heads. Some of the F-16s left might be taken to a 12,000hr SLEP but they will be replaced in the USAF by the F-35 regardless. F-22 has very good sensor and information sharing capabilities it would seem compared to other US jets. "Unfortunately, that's not how the game works: One airplane for each service would have outperformed the F-35 and donse so at a lower total price. Looks like this has to be learned anew by each generation of generals and politicians." Well nobody plays your game it seems. ....and regarding the cost is also wishful thinking and something you couldn't prove anyway.................

30 year old F-16s don't last forever and run for free you know..there are only so many SLEPs before they have to be replaced......and so they will be. What little is known about F-22 deployment suggests it brings some very unique capabilities (not just Stealth and a limited AG role) particularly in areas where there are high end Air Defence systems in Syria (like S-400 etc). Logically you could assume the A and C have been compromised but the end results don't suggest there is anything particularly bad about it.....just proves what an achievement it really has been. They rightly put more emphasis on the AG role and went for similar performance as 4th Gen (regarding old fashioned metrics) . The A has a smaller wing........but find a single F-35A / B pilot feeling compromised in the A-A arena at this or any moment in time. There is no point trying to point out what a waste of tax payers money the F-35 is and then basically say it would be better off wasted on Advanced Super Hornets which look neither cost effective or value for money........(the figures for the Saudi deal were eye watering!)

How about comparisons after it has been in service for a good period......because anything else is clutching at straws. No evidence the F-35 sucks at anything at all in reality.............say they didn't have the VTOL requirement how would it be better?...because it is also funny how people think that better means faster, TV and a few more degrees per second in a horizontal turn. You can question why they are bringing a manned fighter online despite the advances in computing tech to put in Drones....but for the next few years they remain a complement only as they always have been (for a few airforces). As for throwing money at LM that can be questioned too.............as long as it isn't followed by the notion they should just throw similar or more at Boeing for a pretty much obsolete airframe in the SH.