MigBuster

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:

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