My guess is that it is tactical, based on the target visible. Due to the nature of the tactical display, however, I imagine that the actual ID could be made by the host aircraft, a wingman, AWACS…

Not much is done with ‘bullseye’ anymore. Most likely bearing/range from the host aircraft.

wrt the displays…. Not much new there, but it’s the avionics behind them that make the Raptor what it (one would hope) eventually will be….

Mark

Try this one. It’s a large download (approx. 141 Mb, I think), but it’ll blow you away. Besides, T.A.T.U. is not much compared to AC/DC.

Enjoyed the video….

If one takes the time to look at it, there’s alot of very interesting items in it. Both the Air to Ground and Air to Air was pretty good (a bit herky/jerky here and there, but the videographer didn’t exactly have a tripod!!)

btw…. It is basically a ‘best hits’ video from the operational test F-16s based at Eglin AFB. Was intrigued by the first part of the clip (ground shot of weapons results). May have been ‘dubbed’ but the sound of all the ‘bits n pieces’ falling after the initial Ka-boom was pretty wild (one would assume a remote camera; don’t think they could get anyone to sit out there and film away 🙂 )

Anyway, for those that can handle the file size, it’s worth the wait.

Mark

doesnt the US also have the best of simulators on ground? I think their pilots must be getting in a lot of ‘virtual hrs’ there too.
not all IAF pilots get such high hrs like 300. generally fighters get on lower side near 180, strike pilots get more – their sorties are longer. transport pilots (esp helicopter) probably get the most.

Good point, if it was up to hours alone I’d think the transport guys would fly some pretty mean air combat 🙂

Your rundown of the hours by ‘type’ fits the typical US ‘who flys most’ line-up as well…

Mark

Couple of quick comments…

wrt flying hours — Although a good indicator, what occurs during those hours is the critical thing. Is it spent in the local traffic pattern, or doing complex dissimilar air combat scenarios with BVR missiles, surface threats, etc etc. Dont’ read me wrong, I’m impressed with the flying hours, just commenting on it’s limitation as an overall measure of quality.

On the ‘exercises’ bent… alot of PR, fighter pilot bravado, etc mixed in here. What were the scenarios? It would be VERY unusual for USAF/USN unit to show up and immediately begin flying ‘advanced’ DACT missions (4v4 with BVR for example).

More typical is a crawl/walk/run approach where simple 1v1 within-visual-range missions are flown initially(alternating between offensive and defensive starting points), then moving into 2v1, 2v2 and MAYBE 4v4 by the time it’s all over (towards the end of a two week session).

I (for one) would be suprised if they got beyond 2v2’s… Even those might be scripted with/without use of BVR weapons so that a WVR engagement would be more likely to ensue. Assuming this approach was used, it would be difficult to say who/what were the ‘winners’ (a wholly inappropriate term for this king of training btw)

The military value in this type of DACT is two-fold; airframe to airframe comparison during close-in maneuvering (i.e. dogfighting) and the avionics to avionics comparison (during the BVR phases). Would suspect some avionics ‘features’ are closely held and not overtly used (even, possibly, with US most ‘trusted’ allies; and vice-versa)

fwiw

Mark

….From the same photographer as above.

I note he has a web site about to make an appearance. Looks like it will have some ‘nice’ items…

http://www.airframes.net/

Mark

wrt HyperWarps post above… Wonder where the first picture was taken (all the pine trees don’t particularly remind me of Nellis, Edwards or Tyndall)??

Mark

Art do you have a pic of the Diagonal camoflage?

Here’s one example on an F-4.

I’ve seen it on F-5s and F-14s as well

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4c-118012-4.htm

Mark