tflash

You mean like the Super Hornet? Which was delivered on time & on budget, and since has been saving operating costs while excelling in a variety of combat missions? :music_whistling:

:D

The same attack in which unfortunately 2 Marines died. It only now emerges the attack caused such destruction.

According to several news outlets it seems that the taliban destroyed up to six Harrier jets in their attack on Camp Bastion: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/insurgents-posed-u-s-troops/ http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1693071/Taliban-raiders-wore-US-uniforms-hit-jets http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19614911 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9be_1347758337 http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/sep/15/yuma-harrier-jets-marine-felled-afghanistan/

I second that: R-77 on Flanker! But my uppermost biggest wish is some other AI-pilots. I fly offline, and I cannot count how many times one of my AI wingman just shot me out of the air. These AI morons should be court-martialled and kicked out of cyberspace for once and for all.

The answer is clear: yes, it is. What is shown in the JSOW film is *another Hornet taking over the command of the JSOW*. This allows very versatile tactics, which are of extreme importance against well defended naval targets. The AGM-130 is very good but older and imho useless against ships. The AASM is of course a very, very impressive weapon, just like Apache/Storm Shadow. But why you guys want to do diminutive about recent JSOW developments escapes me totally.

Should work now!

LAGS A-G missile based on AIM-9L (by Diehl, makers of Iris-T) offered for Eurofighter: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ila-diehl-lags-ahead-with-eurofighter-offer-376236/ Link corrected! (I make new thread because news thread seems gone?)

Nice. Thanks for sharing!

I still prefer the Su-27, but I play off-line: the problem there is not with the Su_27 and/or its missiles, but with the AI. You have two kinds: the opposing AI, who see and know everything and detect you from outer space, and your AI wingman, who are the most incompetent, clumsy failures you can imagine. So, in 2x2 or 2x4, I have to do everything "miself and I" I also use HI for detecting, MED before lock; R-27ER for forcing position and R-27ET for the kill, R-73 for self-defense when in the merge. I do keep the Su-27 at high subsonic, and do not engage burner before the merge. You have tremendous manoevrability that way, allowing me to shake off any SAHM missile coming my way quite easily. I do not really engage F-15's though, seems an unsmart idea :=)

I'm really looking forward to FC4: Whiners Edition (to be integrated in DCS: Get a Life!) It will be soooo realistic that you can only play it strapped to your Aces II ejection seat.

It is understood that there will be an open competition for the RADAR part in the upgrade, with both Raytheon (RACR) and Northrop-Grumman (SABR) vying for contracts. http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/racr/ http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/sabr/ Besides the USAF there will be a huge market for these upgrades in international F-16 fleets.

Oops, sorry. On the topic: I wonder how the SABR/RACR F-16 radar upgrades would compare against APG-79.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19372299 BTW where did the "news" thread go?

Real men of course do not fly such electro-plastic arcade aircraft, but real machines like the Fairey Swordfish: The guy in the back first puts his hand in the waves to feel if they are cold enough for a good torpedo launch, after which the pilot cuts the torpedo lose with a pair of scissors.

The Typhoon sounds as well as it looks and looks as good as it flies!

Looking forward to FC3! For me, it will mean enjoying the DCS World from a higher altitude, I really like to fly high in the Flanker and F-15. It will also mean 64-bit, which is welcome.

Absolutely superb 2008 Typhoon demo:

I first thought it was the latest Glowing Amraam movie introducing the F-15E to DCS! But it's a South-Korean movie featuring F-15K, a romance with a female pilot and some mean-looking North-Korean bad-guy ace in a supernatural Mig-29! (No, we were not supposed to sympathise with a guy endangering civilians on the ground!) I liked the tailslide into the building: didn't see a Mig do that yet in an airshow!

Lets' make sure we do not end up with more killed tanks than the Iraqi had in the inventory. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19930816&id=AAYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z3YFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4042,2024274 In the same war, the F-111 is claimed by Wikipedia to have killed 1500 tanks and armoured vehicles on its own: "The F-111s were credited with destroying more than 1,500 Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles. Their use in the anti-armor role was dubbed "tank-plinking". Let's take all these numbers with a pinch of salt.

I mistook that with dust.

A little bit off-topic but I think a good addition to DCS would be the ability for MBT's to deploy smokescreens. Besides armour that is one of the very effective MBT protections. They also have IR jammers etc.

Three little points: - I wasn't talking about supercruise but on manoevrability; - It is of course both the form of the upper surface and belly together that creates the bernouilli-effect and thus lift of a lifting body, I agree - I wasn't talking about the computers the F-35 has on board, but the computers that were used to design it.

I'm not so sure about the "small wing area" claim for the F-35. I guess you took the data from Wikipedia? But how is it calculated? My impression is that F-35 has a blended wing + lifting body design. To me, about the whole underbelly of the aircraft is part of the wing area to a certain extent - and to a higher extent than on legacy planes, no? So, I'm not sure the wing loading is so high. Some people have compared it to F-105, which is absurd. The unprecedented massive computing used in its design wasn't only for stealth, but also for the aerodynamics which are not as simplistic as they might seem. The idea was to match the Hornets manoevrability at low speeds with the F-16's accelleration and dash speed.

Is that a JHMCS helmet?