MigBuster

You make some valid points on the general cost of operating aircraft - and yes this would mean more airframe hours. This does need to be offset by the fact that a combat aircraft also has a deterrence value - and for the F-35 this is greater than an Typhoon or F-16. Airforces are also investing in the latest technology and can train on the new tactics and systems to keep them relevant. Also it has to be considered that a cheaper aircraft is a total waste of money if it cannot do it's job - no one can see the future but nations have to try and predict threats regardless. An F-16 type aircraft does not guarantee air space sovereignty now let alone in 20 years time - and this doesn't have to be Russia/China - any country can get a case of the wrong person in charge. From my point of view if an aircraft only does airshows, and peacetime duties because of the deterrence value it provides it is money well spent.

Yes it is up to the governments - they makes the decisions based on information provided to them by relevant offices etc The Strategic Defence Review 2010 clearly outlined the HM governments intentions including using the F-35C. Average taxpayers had ZERO say - I certainly didn't see a referendum on whether the UK should get the F-35. Likewise there was no referendum on going to the F-35B - this was purely down to cost cutting according to the Audit Office - and rightly so - 99.9% taxpayers have no understanding of the issue so are in no position to comment. (this also applies to the many cost figures going about) As for numerical superiority would any of the JSF partners ever be truly alone? - most of the point is better integration with allied equipment during joint operations. Israel perhaps could be the exception but they go against your example because they were outnumbered and surrounded in 1967 by users who had comparable (not worse!) A-A equipment with a real threat of conventional war. To me the F-35 could be just a jobs program to keep the top line skills and jobs in countries that want them - and if it is - then I don't see an issue - it has to be done in some way. As a tax payer I don't remember ever having any say to where the tax actually goes (it is wasted on far worse things than JSF) but I will gladly vote red instead of blue in 5 years time (Yes we have a choice of 2 parties in our token vote).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEixBmIAifc

Hostage caused a stir in late spring when, in press interviews, he said the F-35 would be stealthier than the F-22, its larger USAF stablemate. Conventional wisdom had pegged the F-22, with its angled, vectored-thrust engines, as a stealthier machine than the F-35. Hostage also said the F-35 would be unbeatable when employed in numbers, which is why the full buy of aircraft is "so critical." "I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it. http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx Unless the F-16 is clean - or has a DI under 50 then the F-35 should be more maneuverable - (depending how you define it ) can even do the slow speed high alpha thing (50 degrees limit) - not that it needs to. The F-35 is manouverable where it actually matters! - that is before you take HMDs and EODAS into consideration. If the EODAS thing can track ID and fire on airborne targets 360 degrees then anything stupid enough to do the old fashioned nose point stunt with an IR sig hotter than the sun is going to have a very bad day! You will notice the F-16s doing Baltic patrols with Sniper TGPs - well the top end limit with one of them is according to the manual under M1.6.......... On the the stealth payload thing well - the F-16 has no stealth mode thus any comparison should be the full non stealthily payload on wing pylons....... Even more ridiculous is the only A-G payload that the F-16 bests an F-35 internal loadout is 4 x duel mount JSOWs on BRU-57s. Is the F-35 more costly? likely yes if you take the 1000s of figures banded about from official sources and those who spin BS in the media - but then again you are getting an aircraft that is literally on a different planet in terms of all round capability. If governments want to spend the money then - up to them - on the other hand if you have an airforce you probably don't want to be flying obsolete equipment if you can afford it

Research would suggest the F-35 is far better and capable in this role than the F-16 now let alone in the future when the systems are mature. Even the Block 60 let alone the USAF ones using ancient avionics - note even the recent CAPES upgrade was not funded! ( that still would have left them with far less capability - didn't even include an IRST let alone other bits). As it stands I would expect the F-35 to be up there with the F-22 regarding real life A-A . Translated from http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/04/20/moderne-luftkamp-the-right-stuff-top-gun-eller-noe-helt-annet/#more-1050 In a post in the official norwegian ministry of defence JSF programme blog, the norwegian captain Morten Hanche, test pilot on F-35 with a background on F-16s in the 338 Squadron RNAF, writes some about how an F-35A compares to the Viper in air to air. Unfortunately in norwegian, but the translation to english is decent. Best passage in my opinion is this, Many of my colleague flyers are curious what the F-35 mean in terms of pure performance; how fast , how high , how far ? Performance has also been diligently debated in both newspapers and Internet forums . In this post , I therefore intend to look at how both " stealth " and performance could affect the outcome of a dogfight . I hope you understand that I cannot share the " juicy details " but I do not think it is necessary to get your message across . Modern Air Combat bears little resemblance to fly sequences many know from the film Top Gun . In Top Gun we see a " melee " in the air ; planes chasing each other with only a few tens of meters. When we exercise similar setup between two F-16 , the goal is often to kill your opponent using only aircraft cannon. Usually starting setups between 1,000 and 3,000 feet apart. Within distance has shrunk to 500 meters tend struggle to be settled, without the help of missiles. Top Gun looks great, but it does not describe modern air combat . Training with cannon is not irrelevant, but modern air combat is often decided before the pilots can see each other with their own eyes . Modern missiles have long range and are very maneuverable . They also have reliable sensors and deadly warheads. When we consciously limit ourselves to only use the cannon , it takes a lot for not a missile shot has ruled the fight long before there is talk about the " dogfight ". Top Gun looks great, but it does not describe modern air combat. Air Combat is a merciless arena. The outcome is influenced by many factors, including weather conditions, aircraft maneuverability, range, speed, sensors, antidotes, weapons systems, visual and electromagnetic signature, the pilot's knowledge, training level and will. I mean it is not possible to point to one single factor as the most important. The whole is composed. One weak area does not necessarily mean that the aircraft is badly in dogfight, but the characteristics must be balanced. The most maneuverable plane has the advantage if it comes to "dogfight". If I can "point" own plane in the direction of the opponent, I can simultaneously follow him with their own sensors and threaten all weapons. Yet it is not always so that the most maneuverable aircraft winner. Modern sensors and missiles changes the balance in a dogfight. Our old F-16 is quite heavy in the butt when they are dressed up with all the necessary role equipment: External Fuel, målbelysningsutstyr, weapon mounts, weapons and equipment for electronic countermeasures. There is little left of maneuverability as the audience will watch a air display. In return, our F-16 equipped with a helmet sight and highly maneuverable heat-seeking missile. Therefore, it is not as critical that our F-16 is not particularly maneuverable with weapons; our missiles are more maneuverable than any other fighter. Helmet Indicted means we do not need to point the nose of the plane in the direction of the opponent - we can "throw" a shot over the shoulder. Shot can hardly escape ... It is an advantage to have the fastest fighter. Superior speed makes it possible to collect or escape an opponent. All javelin throwers user misses to throw as far as possible. Likewise, it is advantageous to fly high and fast when a missile being shot. The missile gets more energy which in turn increases the range so that the missile can be fired by the longer distance. If we assume equally proficient pilots, equally good sensors and equally good missiles, it seems that raw performance alone can determine the outcome of a dogfight - the fastest flying can shoot first. Whoever shoots first wins often. Pierre Spey and other critics have pointed out that the F-35 is not as fast or maneuverable as modern Russian fighter. In a previous section I argued that the performance of the F-16 at air display is theoretical and not available in a war situation. Combat aircraft like the F-16 carries the load out. This reduces the practical range, speed, maneuverability and maximum altitude. (This also applies to your opponent's aircraft, which carries the load out). With the F-35, we get more of all this, compared to what we are used to today. To discover how much more was a positive surprise for me. In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 can, without using afterburner. The speed in 'cruises' is without further 50 to 80 knots higher. In the F-16, I must use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot. F-35 "cruiser" both faster and higher. Therefore, I am ready to shoot far anytime. In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16s F-35 also has more fuel than we are accustomed to, it carries the load inside and is not as dependent on afterburner. Therefore we are left with more range than the F-16 and similar aircraft can achieve. "Combat radius" for the F-35 is between 30% and 70% longer than we get with the F-16! The extra range comes in handy in our elongated country. Range may alternatively be replaced in endurance over a given area. This is useful for our little organization, which disposes tanker and relies on versatility in all aspects. Back to performance; perhaps it is the fastest flying can shoot first? In this case, I take even one important proviso; both planes must discover each other at the same distance if kinematics alone shall be conclusive. My experience shows that this is not very realistic. In daily training between their F-16 and meet with our allies, we experience in practice what radar signature and electronic antidotes means. Our old F-16 is "small" on radar and is detected late, compared to other modern fighter aircraft. We also notice the effect of external load; the heaviest loaded planes are detected at the furthest distance because the external load increases radar signature. I therefore claim that it is unrealistic to assume that two militant fighter discovers each other simultaneously, although the sensors basically are equally good. The effect of radar signature and electronic antidotes are great. The effect of radar signature and electronic antidotes are great. If an opponent with " old-fashioned " radar signature meets an aircraft as the F-35 , with very small radar signature , it becomes difficult to exploit the benefits that provides superior performance . Imagine a meeting between a highly trained sprinter and a sniper . The mission is to shoot counterpart. Both are armed with hunting rifles , but only marksmen have riflescope . Sprinter has to return a more powerful rifle , but he is dressed in neon colored tracksuit , and takes up on the short end of a football field. Marksman is camouflaged somewhere on the opposite end path . Sprinter is the fastest and the most powerful rifle , but what is he shooting at ? While sprinter gallops across the track in search of his opponent , he must take shot after shot . This is not a smooth match. Unfortunately I have found that it is extremely frustrating to train dogfight when we can not find the opponent with its own sensors. It ends rarely well .. The outcome of a dogfight between two identical fighter decided finally by the individual pilot. It requires time and significant resources to cultivate a skilled pilot. Especially important is perhaps a steady supply of flying time, a good and constructive learning environment, access to appropriate airspace and an organization that facilitates training. During exercises have my colleagues in the Air Force and I many times flown against more modern fighter than our F-16. Yet, "wins" we occasionally air war against more advanced adversaries, technically speaking. Often the explanation is that we meet inexperienced pilots. More interesting is perhaps when we meet pilots with completely different culture for learning and collaboration. My impression is that cultures where the distance from the conductor to lead is large, fail to cultivate equally skilled pilots. In such highly hierarchical organizations it is perhaps impossible to be honest with your boss in "debriefing" after the flight. Therefore they miss out on important learning. My point with this post was to show that many variables affect the outcome of the dogfight. The situation is rarely black and white. One of the most diffuse might skill of the individual pilot. I am often surprised when I read cocksure posts in newspapers and comment fields. Common to many such posts is a "digital" interpretation of performance data. A speed XY, B rate YY = A is best, period. One problem is the source data referenced. Another is that it tends to focus on a few isolated parameters. Our experience with the F-35 so far has shown us a fighter that will surprise many in air-to-air role. The combination of high performance, good sensors and low signature makes the F-35 to a dangerous opponent in air campaign. Finally; remember that even Arnold Schwarzenegger had to resort to lavsignatur in the old classic "Predator." When using mud. Brute strength is good, but camouflage also works ...

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-unscathed-hostile-fire-green-flag Not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the joint-force Green Flag exercises testing the jet and its pilots’ prowess operating it in a contested air-support role in the Western U.S. this month, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Cameron Dadgar, head of the exercise and leader of the 549th Combat Training Sqdn. at Nellis AFB, Nevada. This is notable because A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions, operating in an environment with hostile aircraft and surface-to-air missiles, he said. USAF officials suggest this validates the theory of Air Force leaders that sacrificing weapons load for stealth in the F-35’s design proved solid, at least for these mission sets. Skeptics, however, say the exercise was a public relations stunt designed to sell the jet as the service continues its uphill battle to convince Congress and others that the aircraft will be a sufficient replacement for the F-15E, F-16 and A-10 for future close air support (CAS) missions. Therein lies the dichotomy between dialogs in the capitols of nations buying the Lockheed Martin F-35 and operators receiving it for training. The latter appear to be at least satisfied with the early, nascent capabilities provided by the F-35A Block 2B jets used in Green Flag, and operators are working to hone pilot skills in employing the jet. By contrast, discussions in Washington—as well as at the Paris Air Show—are focused on constantly justifying the existence of the F-35, the most costly weapons program in Pentagon history. Program managers are aiming to lower the cost of the jet (about $100 million per copy) and boost production numbers as well as defend its incrementally increasing capabilities. The F-35 has participated in Green Flag exercises—conducted twice a year—since 2013; however, this was the first time it was featured prominently. “In comparison with the other airframes, they provided the most sorties over the most days,” says Master Sgt. Sanjay Allen, a Nellis spokesman. Two operational test F-35As participated in the fight from Edwards AFB, California. They flew more than 10 days, with sorties taking place in some cases multiple times a day. Typical weapon loadout for these missions included a single 2,000-lb. GBU-31 and two 500-lb. GBU 12s, which are laser-guided Paveways, Allen says. He bristles at the idea that the media invitation to Green Flag was an F-35 PR stunt. “We’ve had media days at this Green Flag before,” he says. “Just because the F-35 is here doesn’t mean this is a PR stunt.” He and Maj. Christopher Laird, an F-35 pilot, say pilots are learning lessons on how better to employ the F-35 in a contested CAS role, the point of the exercise. With his focus on training pilots, Laird seems almost exasperated at the PR stunt criticism. “This isn’t magic,” he says. “It isn’t bringing anything magic to the fight,” but adding a new capability to the mix, he contends. Green Flag is intended to tax operators to their max so when they reach actual combat they are proficient in a variety of scenarios. Perhaps contributing to the “PR stunt criticism” is that Green Flag is the lesser known of Nellis’s big exercises. Air Force leaders have only recently begun to discuss the exercise widely as they have fought to explain how the F-35 will provide CAS. They more often point to Red Flag, which tests pilots’ air-to-air skills, as the gold standard of flying exercises. Laird says the F-35 pilots were able to communicate directly with ground-based air controllers calling in fires for CAS. While doing so, the F-35s provided their own counter air, or capability to evade hostile fires. He acknowledges that one challenge is for the F-35 to communicate with legacy aircraft—F-15Es, F-16s and A-10s—when operating covertly. The F-35’s Link 16 is effective in transmitting data, but it broadcasts the jet’s location, nullifying its stealthiness. By contrast, F-35s can pass data to other F-35s via the Multifunction Advanced Data Link, which is not accessible to legacy aircraft. “What we are trying to figure out now is integrating the F-35 with fourth-gen assets,” Laird says. Passing threat data from the F-35 to these fighters will make them more survivable in the fight, he adds. Nellis officials did not provide sortie tallies. Meanwhile, Marine Corps officials are preparing for a series of operational readiness trials for the first squadron of F-35Bs in advance of the plan to announce initial operational capability for the aircraft in late July. VMFA-121 at MCAS Yuma, Arizona, will be the first operational F-35 unit in the world, with 10 F-35B Block 2B aircraft and enough trained pilots and maintainers to deploy for operations if needed.

F-16 top end requirement was only M1-6 - M2.0 - more than adequate for its role - and you would have had to make substantial changes to make it go near M3.0 Turbofans generally have far less thrust at high altitude compared to turbojets however it would be difficult to say how much thrust is produced at altitude without seeing data on the F119 v J79. Turbofans have to many other advantages anyway. A big concern for me would be airframe friction at M3.0 for the F-4 airframe.

Aww https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pSWDW18ygaw

The solution to Israel’s speed issues came in the form of a proposal from General Dynamics to convert/modify existing F-4Es to a different engineering standard. The overall aerodynamics of the jet would largely remain the same, save for the inclusion of two large conformal tanks on both sides of the fuselage just above the engines, carrying around 2500 gallons of water (9600 liters for our friends who use the metric system). Now, you’re thinking- wait a second… did I just read that right? What the heck are they going to do with 5000 gallons of water on a fighter jet? Water injection. The boffins at General Dynamics figured that the secret to lifting the Phantom’s speed was pre-compressor cooling (PCC for short), where water would be injected into the air rushing through the engine inlets on its way to the combustion cores, reducing the temperature of the air passing in. By cooling down the air, the mass and density would theoretically be increased, giving the F-4 a major improvement on its thrust output, especially at higher altitudes. The corporate suits at General Electric, the company that designed and built the Phantom’s J79 engines, weren’t thrilled with this suggestion but nevertheless assisted nominally with the research into the concept. This wasn’t anything especially new- General Dynamics had previously attempted something similar with the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, though the work that was put into modifying the F-106 never amounted to anything substantial. Testing done at the Arnold Engineering Development Center, operated by the USAF, found that with pre-compressor cooling, engines could be run with the afterburner engaged for incredible periods of time (e.g. they managed to keep a J75 going with the afterburner lit for 40 hours). PCC had also been used by McDonnell Douglas when the F-4 was first built, just to help break and set a few speed records with the then-new jet, though the system installed in the early F-4 was very basic and barebones, compared to what General Dynamics wanted to do with the F-4X. The new PCC setup for the F-4X would “mist” the water into the engine, thus preventing moisture buildup inside the engine. To make the most of PCC, the air intake inlets were redesigned with larger scoops and a redefined shape, improving the airflow moving into the compressor chambers. To help manage the airflow as efficiently as possible, controllable intake ramps were installed as well as vortex generators for both of the J79s installed. What was the final result of all of this? An F-4 Phantom II that could fly at more than three times the speed of sound for sustained dashes, and would be able to cruise at above Mach 2.4 during missions. The fastest fighter jet ever made (that we know of). The US Air Force quickly gave up on the concept, floated to them first by General Dynamics before Israel got wind of it; likely due to the coming of the high-performance McDonnell Douglas F-15A. While Air Force brass were unwilling to demonstrate any semblance of interest in such an idea because of the impending air superiority fighter acquisition, the State Department had a different worry in mind. At that point in history, the SR-71, flown solely by the United States, gave the US an unparalleled and untouchable intelligence-gathering capability. Allowing foreign customers, even ones with closely-held allegiances to the US, the ability to posses and operate an aircraft with such strengths as the F-4X would be a less than optimal situation. Soviet human intelligence (HUMINT) agents would potentially garner information on the jet, or heaven forbid, actually take an F-4X for analysis, giving the USSR the opportunity to build and field a counter-aircraft that could take out the SR-71 and severely hinder the USAF/CIA’s intel program. The government immediately banned the export of the jet. Working quickly, General Dynamics removed the F-4X’s weapon systems and hardpoints, disarming the jet and circumventing the ban. Instead of flying as a fighter, the aircraft would be equipped with the previously-mentioned HIAC-1 LOROP camera in the nose. Dubbed the RF-4X, it wasn’t the fighter that Israel wanted, but it still fit their reconnaissance purposes well. After securing permission to shop the RF-4X to Israel in 1974, the, the Israeli Air Force loaned General Dynamics an F-4E (serial no. 69-7576) to work with as a mockup, and later, an RF-4X prototype/testbed. Physical work commenced on the RF-4X in November, soon after the aircraft’s delivery, and carried on into the next year. Cardboard and papier-mache was used to simulate the new intake/inlet architecture, as well as the large PCC blister tanks on the sides of the fuselage. The nose of the Rhino was also taken apart and modified to house the HIAC-1. The IAF hounded General Dynamics to build the PCC system as soon as possible, since their need was urgent. However, engineers discovered that they needed far more time than what Israel had to offer. After the USAF withdrew interest from the RF-4X, the program was cut. There was no way Israel could fund such a project on its own. The fastest Phantom in history was dead, having never flown or even proceeded past the mockup stage. Phantom phanatics, I hope you had a box of tissues handy while reading the above. http://tacairnet.com/2015/06/18/redeveloping-the-f-4-phantom-ii-into-a-mach-3-fighterspy-plane/

Paris 2015 https://youtu.be/lbqsMXJ8skk

Had all of these in the day - been so long - remember they were scripted as above. In F-16 there was a really easy way to dodge missiles - mainly because they were picked up on the 360 god scope.

Cant vouch for the validity of this - also considering it has been translated from: http://testpilot.ru/review/runway/volga/volga_xvi.htm In the summer of 1976 a disassembled American F-5 fighter jet was delivered to our base at Aktubinsk. To be correct, it was F-5E - the latest variant with increased engines thrust. By the size it was smaller than MiG-21, had two engines installed side-by-side in the fuselage, a sharp swept-down nose and short tapered wings. The war in Vietnam had finished, and the United States Air Forces were leaving this long-suffering country, hastily abandoning several aircraft of this type on one of the airfields. One of them was handed over to the USSR together with its pilot manual. There were no technical descriptions, but our engineers figured everything out, assembled it to the last bolt and made it flyable, bringing not only the foreign hard pieces together, but also tons of electric wiring. A test brigade was formed to conduct special flight tests, and a program was written, which assumed 35-40 test flights. I was one of the test pilots, our lead was Nikolay Stogov. After a proper training I was trusted to perform the first speed run on the runway and then a run with a 3-6 feet jump. These precautions had their reasons in our uncertainty, that all the systems had been assembled and connected correctly. And finally, we were alone. The "Foreigner" hid within. From the manual I knew, that it had had no problems in operation whatsoever. But I also knew that every manufacturer had their own zest in the product. Unlike our fighters in production, the "Foreigner" had brakes on pedals, which we had on heavy aircraft only. The cockpit was not cluttered by various switches and circuit breakers unneeded in flight. They were all concentrated in a single horizontal "stock" away from the working area. I understood that F-5 was a way not the most modern plane and that it was inferior even to MiG-21, but, nonetheless, I liked the cockpit layout. I decided to make the run on the second runway, which was the longest one. "There is never too much runway ahead," I thought, taxiing to the runway. It was the winter of 1976-77. Of course, there was no reason to hide I was proud that the only aircraft of this type available in the USSR was trusted to me. I turned on the extension of the nose strut - the electrohydraulic retractor engaged, and the nose of the aircraft started to "crawl" up. "How about that?" I shook my head surprised. "Couldn't you do without it on this little one?" As for me, not a common way to reduce your takeoff roll. In the USSR, only Myasischev used this on M-3 and M-4 - the heavy long-range bombers with a tandem gear layout, thus with very short nose struts. "Alright," I thought, "we kneeled, so let's run. It is awkward to fool around this way." I increased thrust and released the brakes. The aircraft started to roll. It rolled evenly, reluctantly gaining speed. Aha! That's why they raise the nose strut! The engines are feeble, and the wing is too small. I lifted the nosewheel off the ground and held the airplane from the premature liftoff. Enough for this time. I powered back and lowered the nose. And then... what the heck? The entire nose started to shake and vibrate, then it started to wander left and right so violently, I thought it would just fall the hell off in a moment. Something was screeching and rumbling below. My first thought was about the nosewheel shimmy, but then I realized the nosewheel had been destroyed. I pulled the drag chute handle. "Not the brakes... Main wheels damage is the last thing we need: we don't have spares," the thoughts were rushing in my mind. Gradually reducing the speed, I stopped. I switched everything off, opened the canopy and impatiently jumped down onto the tarmac. I looked and I was puzzled: the wheel was intact. "That's strange! So what were you so unhappy with?" I looked at the "Foreigner" suspiciously. It turned out that he was unhappy with our runway condition: rough grooves and seams were so deep, and the surface of the concrete was decayed, so he just didn't stand it. One bolt was cut off, and the strut together with the wheel was turning around. - "Nice! Ours don't do things like that," I gave his nose a pat and whispered: "Don't worry, we'll find a new bolt for you and you'll gallop around again!" As I got to know the "Foreigner" I grew up in my respect to him both as to the flying machine and as to the fighter jet. Unapt to aggressive maneuvering when in "cruise" configuration (flaps and slats up), he would have changed when the pilot put it into the "maneuvering" configuration (flaps and slats down). Then from a heavy clodhopper he turned into a swallow. Checking out the capabilities of the optical sight, I enjoyed keeping the reticle on the target while attacking with a 6g pull, whereas on MiG-21 it would disappear from the view at 3g. After determining the basic specification we decided to set up for a mock air-to-air combat with MiG-21bis. I would fight on my "native" MiG-21, and Nikolay Stogov - on F-5. The close air combat started head-on in equal positions. Every flight ended with the same result: MiG-21 lost, although he had much higher thrust-to-weight ratio. I laid myself out just to keep the initial position. I took the most out of the aircraft, took all he could give, but the targeting angle grew steadily and in a few minutes the "bandit" was on my tail. Only tactics could save me. What I was stricken by the most is that the result of the mock fights took not only the generals by surprise (one could explain this somehow), but also the military research departments of the Air Force and even the aviation engineers. They would review the data records for thousand times, ask the pilots, especially me. Frankly, I was somewhat confused as well, but when I tried the F-5, I realized that it was not an ordinary one. So, what was happening in flight? At the speeds of 800 km/h (430 kts) and above the fight was on equal terms, nobody had explicit advantages, but the fighting was not literally maneuvering because of the large radii of the maneuvers. We would both stay at the equal maximum allowable g-loads. Whilst at the speeds below 750 km/h (400 kts) one couldn't sustain these g-loads even with the afterburner. And the lower the speed was the faster it decayed, thus lowering the maximum available g-load. It turned out that the aerodynamics was what won the day, not the thrust/weight ratio. But how was I to explain all this to the people above? They wouldn't have patted our backs for this. Then the MiG company representatives suggested: - "Let's set MiG-23M against him." - "But they cannot be compared to one another; they are from different generations." The chief of our research institute objected. The chief of our institute, colonel general I. Gaidayenko had been a fighter-pilot during World War II and a wingman of the very P. Kutakov, who was the supreme commander of the Air Force at the time of our struggle with the F-5. The result of the test flights was supposed to be reported to Kutakov. - "So what? We will kick his ass anyway!" 2nd lead engineer of MiG-23M spoke out, rubbing his hands in expectance of the revenge. Well, the ass was kicked, for sure... but one of our own. The result was the same with the only exception that the agony lasted for 4-5 minutes. You have also to keep in mind that I had been considered a pilot capable of any stall and spin recovery and I had been permitted to break any angle of attack limitations. In the dogfight, I set the optimal wing sweep manually, but all in vain. The foreigner would slowly, but steadily, approach my tail. After these flights all calmed down for some time, all discussions ceased. The chief of the RI ordered to promptly compile a statement on the tests and directed me and Stogov to Moscow, to the Central Research Institution No. 30, which was involved in elaboration of the long-term problems of aviation advancement. Paying a visit to one of its departments we asked, what they could tell us about the MiG-21 advantages over the F-5E. - "Oh!" The military scientists immediately exclaimed. "With pleasure! There is a fray right now between Ethiopia and Somalia, and these very aircraft fight each other there. And we are busy preparing recommendations for the pilots on how to successfully fight the F-5 in aerial combat." - "And what you've got?" I asked with an interest. - "Take a look at the graph of the attack success probability. See? We beat him everywhere." - "Indeed," I droned, looking at the so familiar graph in front of me and feeling somewhat hurt for the "Foreigner". - "And what're the odds?" My friend asked, making a face of a village gull. - "We've got much better thrust-to-weight ratio," the scientist replied in a voice of a mentor, who knew his worth. - "Alright, then could you read this Statement and give us your final conclusion, please? And..." - "And we'll go have a lunch," Nikolay suggested, "You know, on an errand it's like in defense: the meal is the ultimate thing." This was the end of our work on the comparative evaluation of the "Foreigner" and our Soviet fighters. I don't know what kind of discussions were held "up there", but I know for sure, that the recommendations for the Ethiopian pilots were changed. Our "experts" suggested not to engage in a close dogfight, but to use the "hit-and-run" tactics instead. What about MiG-23, everyone preferred to forget about it. You bet! It had been supposed to fight even more advanced aircraft! Our Statement was classified as top secret and removed somewhere away from the eyes. The "Foreigner" was given to the aviation industry specialists with a strict clause: no flying, but to disassemble and study the structural features to use the knowledge in further projects. Some time passed, and the Su-25 close air support aircraft emerged. It had the wheel brakes on the rudder pedals, "maneuvering" wing configuration and a different approach to the cockpit layout. In the terms of the pilot workstation our engineers went even further, and nowadays the cockpit of MiG-29 can serve as an exemplar for similar foreign combat aircraft. The same can be said about the aerodynamics. The aerodynamic capabilities of Su-27 fighter are considered unexcelled so far. It appears that what is clear for one is a revelation for the other. I believe that similar situations arose in the USA as well, as they got our aircraft at times from MiG-21 to MiG-29. We had luck only once.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf_bCOoXK24

Had a very interesting life - RIP

Their new aircraft needs some wings though I think

Against an enemy hell-bent on the destruction of the United States and her western allies, one might think the number of sorties flown by our guys and gals employing ordnance downrange would be a pretty impressive number. For example, the number of sorties flown in the forty-three days of Operation Desert Storm averaged over 1,100 per day. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, that number was in the neighborhood of 800 per day. During Operation Allied Force over Serbia and Kosovo, the number was significantly less, though nothing to sneeze at with 138 missions flown. So how about the ongoing air campaign against ISIS? Any guesses? Fourteen. Yes, you read that correctly. Barely more than a dozen airstrikes on any given day. To make matters even worse, according to U.S. Senator John McCain, 75% of pilots are returning to their deployed locations with a full load of ordnance. So to break that down again, if there are an average of 14 offensive sorties per day, roughly ten of them involve aircraft returning to base without firing a single shot. “There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but I couldn’t get clearance to engage,” a U.S. Navy F/A-18 pilot told Fox News. “They probably killed innocent people and spread evil because of my inability to kill them. It was frustrating.” Words coming back from the community downrange indicate the amount of time between positively identifying a hostile target and being given release authority from the Combined Air Operations Center is about an hour. As you might imagine, variables in combat operations can change in a matter of seconds. So while it is true the fight against ISIS is a very complex endeavor as it applies to target discrimination, you can’t help but shake your head at the notion our pilots are orbiting armed combatants, watching them escape altogether or blend into crowds of unarmed civilians or go into buildings declared off-limits. “As our leaders have said, this is a long-term fight, and we will not alienate civilians, the Iraqi government or our coalition partners by striking targets indiscriminately,” a spokesman from U.S. Air Forces Central Command (AFCENT). As a result, leadership has handed down Rules Of Engagement (ROE) that some say are too restrictive. While we can appreciate the concern for collateral damage and harming non-combatants, pilots are simply fed up with having their hands tied. “We are not taking the fight to these guys,” said one A-10 pilot. “We haven’t targeted their centers of gravity in Raqqa. All the roads between Syria and Iraq are still intact with trucks flowing freely.” “These are excessive procedures that are handing our adversary an advantage,” said retired Lieutenant General David Deptula, a respected weapons officer and senior leader who is also a former director of the CAOC in Afghanistan. “We have been applying airpower like a rain shower or drizzle–for it to be effective, it needs to be applied like a thunderstorm.” That is well said, General. http://fightersweep.com/2385/us-pilots-our-hands-are-tied/

Its very good. In my experience people generally have short attention spans - so keeping it short and concise is a must where possible.

Glad you liked it SV

Says SFM Standard Flight Model (SFM). This has not changed and defines a more data-driven means of achieving flight dynamics, in conjunction with some scripting. SFM was used in the Lock On series and is still used in the Flaming Cliffs 3 Su-33 and MiG-29. However, we do plan to update these at a later time. Was $9.99 in the sale - total bargain

Good find! Even without a window behind me I still needed to double the curtain thickness to stop interfering light coming through and reflecting off things. Text from http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/56739-tip-trackir-backlight-problem-solved/ I love my TrackiR, I think it is the next best thing to have in your flight simulators, after a decent joystick or yoke. But, alas, it doesn't like the window behind my back (during the day), or any bright light source. It gets disturbed and erratic. Of course I can close the curtains in the living room, but I prefer to keep my wife from divorcing me. And now I got it solved! First I read a tip on Avsim from a guy who put a film negative (or positive, anyway, blackish) in front of the TrackIR. I searched my house for such a relic of ancient times, but to no avail. Then I tried sun glasses. Did not make a difference. Then I tried a piece of black nylon/pantyhose. I still wonder why that idea popped up in my mind, but much to my own surprise it works very well. Just wrap it around the device tightly, and lo and behold: My TrackIR works all day, windows and sunshine no longer causing a problem. I thought I share this with you...