MigBuster

They’re 49 years old, ugly and owned by NASA, not the Pentagon. But two modified WB-57F Canberras are now among America’s most important warplanes. With anonymous-looking white paint jobs, the Canberras have been taking turns deploying to Afghanistan carrying a high-tech new radio translator designed to connect pretty much any fighter, bomber, spy plane and ground radio to, well, pretty much any other fighter, bomber, spy plane and ground radio. That makes the former Air Force reconnaissance planes, originally transferred to the space agency for science missions, essential hubs of the American-led war effort. With the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node system, or BACN, the WB-57s act as Star Trek-style universal translators, passing data between planes and troops and finally bringing to life the Pentagon’sdecades-old dream of speedy, information-propelled, networked warfare. “It orbits high up and basically receives various platforms’ datalink data, then translates all that data and redistributes it in a fused manner back to different platforms in the operating area,” Aviationintel’s Tyler Rogoway told ace aerospace blogger David Cenciotti. “BACN bridges the gaps,” manufacturer Northrop Grumman boasted. The old NASA recon planes — the only two of their kind not yet consigned to museums — aren’t the only gap-fillers. Since 2005 the Air Force has slowly been assembling its own hodgepodge fleet of BACN planes. And yes, that’s pronounced “bacon.” In addition to the two NASA WB-57Fs, the Air Force possesses three EQ-4B Global Hawk drones fitted with the radio translator plus four similarly equipped E-11A Bombardier business jets, the most recent of which was handed over on Thursday. The different planes boast varying speeds, ranges and payloads, but what they have in common is the ability to fly very high for hours at a time, lending their electronic receivers and transmitters the maximum possible coverage. NASA’s old WB-57s might even be the highest-flying of the lot, with a top altitude of around 70,000 feet, high enough that the pilots have to wear pressure suits. It costs no less than $100 million a year to keep the BACN planes flying. They split their time between tests and war games in the U.S. and overseas deployments, with occasional down time to tweak their systems. The WB-57Fs are frequent visitors to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. There’s also apparently at least one E-11 in Afghanistan at any given time. The EQ-4s have been spotted in Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan, where one crashed last year, and in the United Arab Emirates, apparently helping translate for F-22s temporarily based there to deter Iran. It’s hard to over-state the importance of the BACN jets. Owing to sporadic funding and technical hurdles, the Air Force — to say nothing of the rest of the military — has never managed to get all its weapons to speak the same electronic language. The flying branch had hoped to replace most of its frontline aircraft with an all-stealth fleet using just one special datalink. But that hope died years ago, and today the Air Force uses no fewer than seven different types of digital links — a “dog’s breakfast of different datalinks,” is how Lt. Gen. William Lord put it last year. Newer F-16s use one version of Link 16 and older ones another; A-10s and F-15s also each use different editions of Link 16 that aren’t always compatible. F-22s are the worst offenders, using the Intra-Flight Data Link that allows it connect only to other F-22s. Add the Army, Navy and Marines — oh, and allied militaries, as well — and the confusion only grows. Since the early 2000s the Pentagon has made several attempts to tear down this electronic Tower of Babel. BACN, co-developed by the Air Force, Northrop and NASA — hence the space agency’s continued involvement — is the one that worked the best. It’s the only deployed system that can sort through much of the radio garble, translating message formats back and forth to get warplanes communicating with each other and with troops on the ground. It’s networked warfare in a single box, albeit an improvised one. And that’s how net-centric warfare is finally becoming a reality across the U.S. military, 14 years after two officers coined the term and nearly a decade since the Iraq war proved the concept’s flaws.The grand, over-arching systems such as the Army’s Jitters radio and the Air Force’s all-stealth datalink have collapsed under their own weight. From the wreckage, the Army is cobbling together a network of upgraded radios and combat smartphones. And NASA and the Air Force have their sometimes-ancient BACN jets with their universal translators, orbiting over war zones making sure everybody can talk to each other. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/air-force-universal-translator/

Heres a similar French mix

Short Blue Flag footage

Ace - seems to be similar to my P-51 experience!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDaNALBKgxU

Also posed here http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3895732/Re_CombatACE_server_not_respon#Post3895732

Depends how you look at it - the F-16/79 was a massive downgrade over the Block 1/15 - you had an old J-79-GE turbojet with higher fuel consumption and 5860 lbs less thrust at AB compared to the F-100-PW turbofan and capability was intentionally limited. The F-16V on the other hand needs to be the most advanced version ever and offer capabilities (In a new airframe) at least on par with the Gripen if the US wants to stay in the lower cost market. As far as the US goes what else does it have to offer? - I mean F-35 is not an F-16 replacement - its F-15 size, has far more internal hardware / avionics and stealth, will likely sell far less, will never be anywhere near as cheap to procure or run. and likely will only be sold to select countries. If you did an F-35/79 - what would it look like - downgraded engine / radar, the DAS & EOTS would probably be removed, the RAM coating left off, other materials used on panels - and now you (could argue )have a airframe far inferior to the F-16V in everything but range.

Fly in a V formation? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25737960 Cant help thinking - where do these people get funding from? - couldn't they have just asked someone who does Aero to look at a video? Next week - why do birds fly in a circle under clouds.

He does state in part 1 The judgement of what is considered low and high-end purely reflects pricing and not performance.

Sorry to hear that - I thought there were quite a few serious players on the more hardcore side of things

if its for SF1 could be a ton of things wrong - enjoy: http://combatace.com/topic/44026-converting-older-planes-to-work-in-sf2-%E2%80%93-a-basic-guide-by-migbuster/

Some interesting thoughts about improving the US low end fighter. Miscalculation: the need for a new US fighter export strategy in the global fighter market Part 1 http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/miscalculation-need-for-new-us-fighter_7.html Miscalculation: the need for a new US fighter export strategy in the global fighter market Part 2 http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/miscalculation-need-for-new-us-fighter_13.html

Well some got their P-51 - I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now - their organisational skills seem pretty amateur. Although we are the customers you certainly have to put up with what little supply we can get in this business. I think they will come through.- no radars, MFDs, missiles etc - should be easy this WW2 lark :)

As Streak says - never give up - although I certainly hope things turn to the better for you. - I was expecting better news when I saw this - so am really sorry you are having this bad luck

Well hey at least its something for you long suffering DCS fans http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119201 Hey guys, I can't believe it's the middle of January already, this year is going to fly by, excuse the pun!! Development of the Hawk is going very well and she is up and running in DCS World 1.2.7. with full weapons capability so all my stressing on that front is over, thank you ED!!! This takes us to the next stage of development, BETA...yes you read that correctly We have a small group of public testers that will become the first closed Beta testers alongside our dedicated VEAO testers team. They will be testing all aircraft functions to make sure it's purring like a kitten and biting like a tiger. Which will then move us to the next stage, hmmm I wonder what that one is, suggestions anyone?? Following a team discussion last night and pending any natural disasters, zombie outbreak, IPR lawyers putting the breaks on or Tango getting hit by a bus; we are pleased to make the following announcement. Hawk Open Beta will be released as an FC3 level aircraft with fully clickable cockpit before the end of February 2014!! Confused? yes we thought you might be so please let me clarify. We are still working on the AFM, in fact that's going very slowly so we will be releasing the open Beta version of the Hawk as an FC3 level aircraft (as it doesn't have AFM) but it will have the fully clickable cockpit as some of you have got used to in the public alpha release. Should you not wish to use the clickable cockpit, we are looking at an option to turn that off/on. Now some of you may argue that this is in fact a DCS level aircraft because of the fidelity of the systems and clickable cockpit but we felt that without AFM it would be unjust to call it DCS level. So do we call it DCS:Hawk or simply Hawk or something else. We think in line with ED's FC3 products we will simply call it T.1A Trainer to differentiate this version from the full DCS AFM version. Costings; well we have considered the cost of standard FC3 aircraft add-ons and cost of DCS level add-ons (current and future) and have taken a decision as it will come with fully clickable cockpit functionality. The product will cost $39.99 and when we have the AFM version ready for release there will be a $10 upgrade charge should you wish to go for that. Final DCS:Hawk product will be $49.99 We feel that is reasonably priced for what you will get in this version which is basically everything you would expect in a DCS level fidelity aircraft apart from AFM. By releasing the aircraft next month and taking sales it allows us to further invest in the AFM programming. As you know I have fully funded development over the past few years but further investment is required and this is the best way to do it. We get investment and you get to fly the product, win win on both sides. To clarify; this will be a paid-for BETA version. Some things will not be implemented fully yet and we will make it very clear at the time of selling what is included and what is still left to be completed. Thank you again for all of your support and interest in our products. Chris and the VEAO team. Also please note that past competition winners will receive the FC3 Hawk and the upgrade to DCS:Hawk when it's available.

Don't worry I've probably scared him off with may last comment

click on your name top right hand corner and there is a Donate button. thanks

The U.S. Air Force has recently announced that the 4 year repair process of the B-2 Spirit of Washington has been completed. The plane burnt down back in February 2010 during a take-off from Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. A minor engine fire turned out to be disastrous for the airframe and all four powerplants of the stealth bomber. The process took so long mainly due to the complicated structure of the bomber that is based on a composite airframe. USAF did not publicize the estimated costs of the repair. Both USAF engineers and Northrop Grumman professionals were involved in the process. The repair made the B-2 reachieve its full operational capability with the entire USAF force of stalth batwing planes back to 20 Spirit bombers out of 21 delivered (one was lost in an accident at Andersen AFB on Feb. 23, 2008). It was on Dec. 17. last year that Northrop Grumman celebrated the 20th anniversary of the first B-2 delivery. http://theaviationist.com/2014/01/10/spirit-of-washington-back/#comments

Full story and flight:

Defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian (pictured below in Rex Features-sourced image) visited Dassault’s Mérignac final assembly site on 10 January, where details of the F3 R-standard deal were announced The key aspects are full integration of the laser-guided version of Sagem’s AASM “Hammer” air-to-surface missile (which has already been employed in Mali via an urgent operational requirement project) and MBDA’s Meteor air-to-air missile, plus a new-generation laser designation pod to be developed by Thales, with all of the new bells and whistles to be validated in 2018. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/

Knight: Thats easy!! Bridge keeper: what is your favorite colour? knight: Red..........................no blue...aaaaarrgghh

Finnmecanica have an active interest in F-35 - so I couldn't see them pulling out . http://www.finmeccanica.com/en/-/finmeccanica-alenia-aermacchi-contratto http://www.finmeccanica.com/en/-/f35 When the politicos say there is no money - it means there is no money to give to the general public - not for anything they deem politically significant

There are light sets available in the download section for most of the default TW runways that are used throughout the series (maybe 5 or 6 different styles). So you need to find or extract each _airfield.ini - then paste in the light set sections and light material section appropriate for each type. [LightSet001] LightOn=0.25 <--------this determines lights coming on Color=0.88,0.88,0.88 Material=LightMaterial Height=0.5000 Size=0.2000 Directional=FALSE Prefix=RPoint RPoint001=-45.0000,-1341.2285 RPoint002=-45.0000,-1310.7285 RPoint003=-45.0000,-1280.2285 RPoint004=-45.0000,-1249.7285 RPoint005=-45.0000,-1219.2285 .................. [LightSet002] ................. [LightMaterial] DepthBufferCheck=TRUE DepthBufferWrite=FALSE .....................

Su-30SM Yak-130

What about Italy and Norway?