MigBuster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64w68L2Swzo

And the controversy as always: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-air-forces-top-guns-score-wins-in-the-uk-1204336?pfrom=home-lateststories Indian Air Force Sukhois Dominate UK Fighter Jets in Combat Exercises http://forces.tv/00317417 RAF Challenge Indian Air Force 'Whitewash' Claims

Ton of photos posted here http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/photos-indias-su-30mki-flankers-sparred-with-raf-typho-1722373860

Do you have multiple installs and does this happen to all of them? If not first thing to try would be to cut and paste your mod folder out (somewhere Safe) and run the game as stock - if it still persists then looking at graphics drivers, window/PSU etc etc

Brought to you by Sim155 Ltd, Combat Air Patrol 2 (CAP2) is a flight and naval combat simulator game for PC (Steam/Windows) where you pilot the AV-8B Harrier II. The trailer above is in-game footage. The AV-8B Harrier II is a battle proven powerhouse of the US air force. With its history, iconic look and it’s ability to hover and land vertically it requires no explanation as to why it has become a widely used military aircraft and trusted by scores of highly trained pilots. Here is your chance to become one of those pilots! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1413102387/combat-air-patrol-2 Might be worth getting some more info on this before deciding to back.

Killerfish Games is an independent developer consisting of Paul Sincock and Nils Ducker. Paul has worked in the systems biology field and software development in Silicon Valley, while Nils has worked on Battlefield 3 (EA DICE), the Little Big Planet franchise and The Perils of Man. They outsource a lot of content like additional artwork, effects and the soundtrack. The artist Przemek who did most of the effects and the various event images has worked in the Strike Fighters mod community where he is well known for his terrain mods and cockpits. Well done Stary and congrats - good to see you getting to show your skills in a game like that.

Not sure what you mean by Drops off exactly? Are you meaning your radar lock is being broken by jamming etc? what Aircraft ?

RIP sir.

The British Royal Air Force (RAF) and Indian Air Force (IAF) have hailed the success of a major exercise which saw the deployment of four Sukhoi Su-30MKI ‘Flankers’ to the U.K. to fly with and fight against the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon. Exercise Indradhanush IV (Hindi: Rainbow) concluded on July 30 following intensive flying operations with RAF Typhoon squadrons from RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire. Ten IAF crews including 15 pilots and five weapon systems operators flew twice daily missions, often flying all four Su-30s on air-to-air training missions flying beyond visual range (BVR) and within visual range (WVR) engagements with the Typhoon. This is the fourth iteration of the exercise, with the British and Indians taking it in turns to visit each other's shores. The last time the Indians deployed to the U.K. was in 2007. The Su-30s came from 2 Sqn – the Winged Arrows – based at Tezpur near India’s frontier with China. The Flanker pilots were also able to use their thrust-vectoring control (TVC) “super-maneuverability” capability activated by flipping a switch in the cockpit. One pilot told Aviation Week that they had used the yaw capability of the TVC to remain inside the tight turn radius of the Typhoon in order to keep the Typhoon in missile launch parameters. It was not possible to assess which aircraft, if any, had the upper hand in air combat, pilots and commanders remained tight lipped on the results of any dogfighting. RAF Wg. Cmdr. Chris Moon, commanding officer of 3 (Fighter) Sqn which led the exercise said that participants had adopted a “crawl, walk, run approach” with Indian crews familiarizing themselves with U.K. airspace regulations before taking on the Typhoons in 1vs1, 2vs1 and increasingly complex engagements. The last exercise mission saw all four Flankers working with six Typhoons to escort and support two C-130J Hercules on a paradropping mission. They were opposed by 8-10 red-air Typhoons. The exercise also saw the use of an Indian C-17 and an Il-78 tanker aircraft. The Il-78 operated alongside an RAF A330 Voyager tanker over the North Sea. While the Su-30s could have refueled from the Voyager, they were not cleared to, as a result fighters refueled from their national assets. At least two RAF pilots got to fly in the back seat of the Su-30 during exchange sorties on July 30. All Indian aircraft left the U.K. on July 31. http://aviationweek.com/blog/exercise-indradhanush-flankers-and-typhoons-battle-british-skies?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20150803_AW-05_494&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000001360373&utm_campaign=3344&utm_medium=email&elq2=b225b3ec70e541dd92c6bef6ba06f0b6

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1745960/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_3

Green Hell 3.5 Any aircraft not in the default game that were in SEA including weapons ECM, loadouts etc eBurger did a pretty big mod for Nam

The summer heat is here and so are the DCS savings! Take advantage of this mid-summer FLASH sale that runs from 15:00 (UTC time) Friday, July 31st to 05:00 (UTC time) Monday, August 3rd. Fill out your DCS World library before the big move to DCS World 1.5 in September 2015. This FLASH sale is for USD prices only and does not apply to former Soviet Union countries. http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/ DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3: $39.99 to $11.99 (70% off) DCS: A-10C Warthog: $39.99 to $11.99 (70% off) DCS: Black Shark 2: $39.99 to $11.99 (70% off) DCS: P-51D Mustang: $29.99 to $8.99 (70% off) DCS: Fw 190 D-9 Dora: $49.99 to $14.99 (70% off) DCS: Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst: $49.99 to $14.99 (70% off) DCS: Combined Arms: $19.99 to $5.99 (70% off) F-15C for DCS World: $9.99 to $2.99 (70% off) Su-27 for DCS World: $9.99 to $2.99 (70% off) Su-27 The Ultimate Argument Campaign: $9.99 to $2.99 (70% off) A-10A for DCS World: $9.99 to $2.99 (70% off) Su-25 for DCS World: $9.99 to $2.99 (70% off) DCS: MiG-15bis: $49.99 to $14.99 (70% off) DCS: F-86F Sabre: $49.99 to $14.99 (70% off) DCS: UH-1H Huey: $49.99 to $14.99 (70% off) DCS: Mi-8MTV2 Magnificent Eight: 49.99 to $14.99 (70% off) DCS: C-101 Aviojet: $59.99 to $17.99 (70% off) DCS: MiG-21bis: $49.99 to 19.99 (60% off)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=340&v=JozAmXo2bDE

Have ordered another SSD and have downloaded the iso - so will be testing bits over the next few weeks. Suspect I might have to get a different version of office :(

Has video http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33690446 Investigators say a Virgin Galactic spaceship crash was caused by structural failure after the co-pilot unlocked a braking system early. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) says resulting aerodynamic forces caused the brakes to actually be deployed, tearing apart the craft. The NTSB has been probing what caused the craft to break up over the Mojave Desert in a test flight 10 months ago. The accident killed co-pilot Michael Alsbury and badly injured the pilot. 'Human factors' The Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo space tourism craft was flying a manned test last October when it experienced what the company described at the time as "a serious anomaly". It had been undergoing a powered test flight over the desert north of Los Angeles. Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson said after the disaster that he was "shocked and saddened" by the "tragic loss". NTSB chairman Christopher Hart said on Tuesday that he hoped the investigation would prevent a similar accident recurring, adding that the safety board had learned "with a high degree of certainty the events that resulted in the break-up". "Many of the safety issues that we will hear about today arose not from the novelty of a space launch test flight, but from human factors that were already known elsewhere in transportation," he added. Both pilots were employed by Scaled Composites, the company that designed the craft.

In the CW you would likely have flown through too much radiation on the way there so it wouldn't matter. There are methods for employment and avoiding the blast - though whether they work or not..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33650713 A new system to resist terrorist bombs smuggled onto aircraft has been tested in dramatic experiments. A device called FlyBag is designed to absorb the shockwaves and shrapnel caused by explosions. If security fails and a bomb reaches the luggage hold, the idea is that the blast would be safely contained. The trials - using old jets at Cotswolds Airport in Gloucestershire - showed that explosions on board caused no damage.

Currently Reading The Hunter Killers (Vietnam) by Dan Hampton (Ex Viper Driver) Very good thus far and useful tech info in the Weasel gear. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Hunter-Killers-Extraordinary-Dangerous/dp/006237513X

Considering the Flight Model changes required I would say only the clipped wing version for the time being. I would like the late mk9 or mk16 with the bubble canopy personally.

Will hypersonic airliners be too hot to handle . . . literally? The issues involved in ground handling of a Mach 5-plus transport still simmering after its intercontinental hypersonic hop are among the unique challenges being considered as researchers address the potential operation of future high-speed airliners. While most hypersonic transport projects have focused on the basic design and aerodynamic, propulsion, structures and systems technologies required, the operational aspects are equally challenging and hard to predict, say developers. For clues on how to tackle some of these issues, hypersonic researchers are turning to previous high-speed operations such as the Anglo-French Concorde Mach 2 airliner or Mach 3.2 Lockheed SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft. However, speaking at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Hypersonics and Spaceplanes conference in Glasgow, Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs Manager Rob Vermeland says that while these lessons may be useful to some degree, the operational challenges of a hypersonic transport versus a supersonic or subsonic aircraft represent “a whole different animal.” Future high-speed airliner projects like that being considered by the European-Japanese Hikari group have outlined a notional target for turnaround time of around 48 hr. Yet for the SR-71, even with the full attention of a dedicated ground crew, high-tempo operations were simply not feasible, says Vermeland. “If we had one sitting in the hangar here and the crew chief was told there was a mission planned right now, then 19 hr. later it would be safely ready to take off.” Then there is the question of maintainability. “The SR‑71 often would not come back ‘Code One,’ or flight ready. More often it was Code Two, which meant things had to be fixed, or worse Code Three, which meant major things had to be fixed. It might return with delaminated panels, rivets that had popped out in flight or even broken inlet parts. The average time to get the plane back and ready to fly was a week. If something broke it could be a month,” says Vermeland. “So if the high-speed goal is a 48-hr. turnaround, it will take a lot of effort to achieve. Airlines today try to turn an aircraft around so it flies nearly all the time. These aircraft will be sitting on the ground for around 100 times longer than they’ll be flying, so think of the economics of that.” The answer, he suggests, will be the development of intelligent, embedded prognostic, data-tracking and health-monitoring systems linked to an efficient logistics process, so that spare parts are ready and waiting when an aircraft arrives. Safety considerations should guide the design from the start, Vermeland says. The SR-71 was notoriously prone to suffering inlet “unstarts” at high speed, which were “a violent event for the pilot. It slapped them against the canopy. What will happen to our passengers if there’s an event that maybe an Air Force pilot is OK with, but your average businessman is not going to want to happen?” Passengers will also expect the comfortable cabin of today’s subsonic aircraft despite the extreme conditions outside. “Don’t imagine our passengers will have pressurized suits. What happens if we lose cabin pressure in these vehicles? What happens when you have a failure, and if you can’t afford to have a failure, what safety systems do you need to prevent that?” Researchers expect future hypersonic vehicles will need to work within today’s air transport infrastructure. But given the unusual requirements of high-speed aircraft for everything from fueling and ground handling to long runways and high-radius turns on taxiways, Vermeland asks if it may be better to develop dedicated “point-to-point” hypersonic airports. “Maybe it is worth the expense of designing a vehicle for that type of operation and not the other way around. There’s the whole infrastructure to consider for hydrogen fuel, and what about ground handling? Today’s cabin attendants and ground staff open the door on arrival. They push it in and there’s lots of touching to a part where there may be high temperatures. Do they put on heat-resistant suits or fire-retardant gloves?” Hideyuki Taguchi, green engine research leader at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, says current civil aviation certification standards are simply “not suitable for such an advanced aircraft.” The regulations governing forward visibility for the crew, for example, may be difficult if not impossible to meet with current study configurations that have both pilots and passengers shielded inside the vehicle between liquid-hydrogen fuel tanks. “This cannot be certified by the FAA because the crew cannot see directly out of the front of the aircraft,” he says. Hypersonic vehicles will need to navigate carefully to avoid exposing populated areas to sonic booms, says Sergey Chernyshev, executive director of TsAGI, the Russian central aerohydrodynamic institute. “The carpet of exposure to [a] sonic boom will be larger because of the vehicle’s much higher altitude. However, for vehicles we have studied, [under the European-funded Hexafly-Int high-speed vehicle project]” with a 360-ton takeoff weight, the maximum amplitude of the shockwave is only around 60-plus Pascals [1.25 psf] overpressure, so not so high as expected.” This is approximately the same as a boom generated by the space shuttle following reentry at Mach 1.5 and 60,000 ft. altitude but less intense than the 90 Pascals produced by the Concorde at Mach 2 and 52,000 ft. “To deal with the issue, we must think of the shape and configuration of the aircraft, the flight profile and atmospheric conditions. Typically, we calculate the sonic boom on shockwave density from straight flight, but if we have maneuvers or g factors while accelerating, this gives us increasing density because of focusing of shockwaves from different trajectories,” he says. As well as sonic boom concerns, the potential impact of emissions will be a major factor in both the vehicle’s design and how it is operated, says Sebastien Defoort, a research engineer at French aerospace research center Onera. But the severity will vary depending on cruise altitude, speed, fuel type and a deeper understanding of the potential climatic effects of water vapor in the stratosphere. “We will have to make this green from the start. There are some strong public concerns that need to be taken into account,” he says. “A conventional airliner flying at an altitude of 10 km will emit, as an order of magnitude, 300 tons of carbon dioxide and 140 tons of water vapor. A Mach 5 aircraft will fly at 25 km and, if it is hydrogen-fueled, will emit a lot more water vapor but no carbon dioxide. But if we fly at Mach 8, we will fly a lot higher and deposit a lot more water vapor in the upper atmosphere,” Defoort adds. A small fleet of hypersonic vehicles could add 15 megatons of water vapor a month to the atmosphere, most of it in the northern hemisphere. “We have to be careful, as these figures have yet to be consolidated, but the data seem to show that water vapor has a very large effect on climate and temperature change. Nitrous oxide emissions have an effect, but are secondary for hydrogen fuel.” More detailed analysis shows there are additional effects of the chemistry of the atmosphere that can reduce the residence time at higher altitudes. The bottom line, says Defoort, is “it may be better to fly at Mach 8 and higher altitudes.” In addition, he says, “there are special trajectories that may mitigate the emissions effects, for example, flying over the poles will help because residence times of water vapor can be lower.” http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/mach-5-airliner-operations-face-huge-challenges?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20150720_AW-05_147&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001360373&utm_campaign=3233&utm_medium=email&elq2=a3dc33bef64d453dbfd085c2a4f56af6