MigBuster

Well I've seen it written that the F-15A size was partly a function of the radar they wanted to put into it - so it got lucky in that sense. As for modifying old designs - the FA-18E/F was not bad and is procured in numbers - but on the other hand you have the Mitsubishi F-2 which is enough to put anyone off.

Depends on the comparison - empty weight + engine + 50% fuel +ammo puts it about 22,000lbs - which is still lighter than its rival 4th Gens : F-16A B10 = empty 15,306 lbs (Unclass SAC doc) MiG-29 (9.12) = empty ~25,000 lbs (wiki) , 33,070 lbs normal (YGordon ) FA-18A = empty ~28,000lbs (J Baugher) ?? (FA-18C given around 23,000lbs) F-15A = empty 25,870lbs (unclass SAC document) F-14A = empty 38,188lbs (unclass SAC doc) Su-27 (T-10S) = empty 35,270lbs (YGordon) Also consider the F-16 only gets one engine (~3000 lbs) compared to all the above - but can carry 7,189 lbs of fuel which is probably why only the F-14 and SU-27 on that list had better endurance on internal fuel. in Boyd it mentions he wanted more wing area on the 16 to counter the weight put it back to where the YF-16 was but never got it. Looking at the F-16E/F Block 60 and F-16D/I Black 50+ you do wander how much more you can hang off it - which is why I think the USAF will probably only go as far as putting AESA radars in their best low timers while the 35 comes in.

Nice one Eric - just sad to see that this is still going on. If this guy thinks he still has anonymity hes going to be in a for a shock

Interesting take on things - might not have much luck against the Taliban airliners though :) No one for any Russian stuff - MiG-29K, Su-35S, Su-34 ?

The complexity of the F-4 setup seems to have been a massive problem the AIM-4D had 4.2 second cooling time and the nitrogen had to be manually discharged about 90 secs before you wanted to fire it - then you had to get into parameters before the coolant run out - otherwise the missile was useless. Have also read that the missiles got damaged on the F-4 being carried externally - whereas the F-102/106 had them protected in bays The operating procedure for the F-4 and lack of prox fuse made it totally unsuitable for dogfights. TK has had to compromise because in game you just hit the trigger. Tested against subsonic bombers (Assumed No CM at high alt flying level): AIM-4A had a 0.78pk for a salvo of 3 fired from rear hemisphere AIM-4C had a 0.92pk for a salvo of 3 fired from rear hemisphere, and a 0.82pk if 2 were fired AIM-4D had a >0.9pk for a salvo of 2 fired from rear hemisphere AIM-4E had a >0.87pk for a salvo of 2 fired from rear hemisphere AIM-4F had a >0.87pk for a salvo of 2 fired from rear hemisphere AIM-4G had a >0.87pk for a salvo of 2 fired from rear hemisphere

Not in production in 2012 - not sure you can preorder one yet either - try again there must be something you like - there's quite a lot still being made

Any favorite modern day Military aircraft? - must have been in production or available brand new in 2012 For me - probably still the F-16C Block 50/52 + - because I'm getting old

Thats just brilliant - well done to those guys

Saw it - but I had the original years back so not a contender for me Ted and Looper ok - but dont recommend Taken 2 personally.

have seen tons this year Out of - Dark Knight Rises / Skyfall / The Sweeney / The Grey

Happy New Year guys - 2013 really cant be worse than 2012!

These must be the most detailed missiles in any computer sim on the planet - amazing!

BSODs are normally hardware related - often a bad DIMM - so worth doing a memory check - but will need to be with a proper diagnostic (MS have one) - takes ages but should find actual errors. Or pull out a few sticks (if you have more than 1) and see if the problem keeps happening. Also take out your graphics card and put it back in. Obviously read up a bit on how to do this if you are not sure - and unplug the PC from the mains, and de-static yourself before doing anything.

Well whats changed - we rarely used to colonize countries that could actually fight back it seems nice quote from Blackadder: "If you saw someone in a grass skirt you shot him and nicked his country"

I think I read in one of Yefim Gordons books that they went to the trouble of sticking false parts on some jets to fool the satellite intel.

.

RIP - some memorable shows - Terrahawks, Stingray, and this

Well that is worrying if true - considering I can sustain 13G -14G in the J-6

Its just the usual words of wishful thinking you see from someone who really has no clue about what was tested in that exercise - oh it now has this capability so therefore must be just as good blah blah - flipping hilarious. Wouldn't be complete without the usual comment about having some parameter of the flight envelope that will somehow play out despite all the other factors involved, and the fact you cant dictate what happens in a merge to that level (if you get to one). For example a hypothetical 11 degree turn rate that may happen with a clean jet at some altitude at some certain weight if you remember to use contingency thrust - (tbh its still sh**e ) The MiG-21 airframe is the major problem here and India are due to replace these relics over the next few years.

Happy Christmas (or whatever you celebrate) to all....... May yours be peaceful and full of presents and alcohol cheers

unbelievable - even if it happened it would probably just crash into the earth or something equally stupid.

Some on the brochure http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/0/36830.pdf

This may have been the case in SF1 - but in SF2 the revised super MiGs will probably outperform it at any altitude- The 102 is a pretty interesting challenge though. comparing the real stats: If taking the J57-P23A powered F-102A - that has a best TW ratio the same as the MiG-17F (about 0.63) - whereas the MiG-19S was a rocket ship (0.85) because its so light at combat weight. The F-102A top end is only about M1.2 - where as the 19 goes to M1.35 and probably gets there a lot quicker - so out powering either might not have been the best option. Also at higher altitudes the MiG-17F/19S control stiffness that occurred (even with hydraulic boostered flight surfaces) doesn't exist because of the thinner air. The 102 has a much larger wing area and lower wing loading than the MiG-17F even so you would have expected it to be better at turning at higher altitudes (although not for certain as the 102s delta has a 60 degree sweep compared to the 45 degree and 55 degree of the 17/19 which have different layouts ) - but then you have to keep tally on the bandit out of that nightmare of a cockpit - whereas the 17/19 have bubble canopy's and lots of guns. Also bear in the mind the MiG-17F has an 8G frame over the 7G frame of the F-102 (the 19 has a 6.5G one) The 102 should have a bit more combat persistence - although maybe not if you are flying over North Vietnam - and you need to spend the fight in burner to try and get your Falcons in parameters (then remember to open the missile tray). In SF2 you are also faced with MiGs that have a 360 degree EODAS system so its not always easy to catch one flying in a straight line.

Used to increase the FPS by loads - but only if you have a multicore CPU from what I remember.