tflash

So it will be SU-35 then. I can live with that :D Honestly it isn't really my ambition to fly the Flanker primarily against Eagles, like in FC2. I guess unless in a full scale peer conflict most of these air superiority fighters do largely asymmetric stuff, keeping watch over the airspace. The Flanker's wing makes that you can fly fast but also can loiter and be very manoevrable at low speeds. Plus you got very good range. Ideal for CAP, QRA, Border patrol, intercepting UAV's etc. Currently, in FC2 off-line I'm trying to intercept and visually identify Yak-40's, that I let fly very high or low in the mountains.

I really want to cry while flying DCS:Flanker! Tears of joy! The best thing I guess is that you have to do a lot of stuff before you can shoot an R-27 missile. That must make it most thrilling. Living for ages on the wrong side of the clouds here in Belgium, my dream is to virtually fly high, not down below. Su-27S: whaaaawwww!!!! Let it come!

So it seems it was the right version's first flight:

Some discussion into possible causes of the crash, including an interesting mishap table at the end of the article: http://hamptonroads.com/2012/04/navy-explore-catastrophic-breakdown-scenarios

^^ +1 !

As I understood it, fuel load is also calculated on what you can have as loading for landing. Aircraft that need to do a landing with full tanks often do a few circles to reduce weight or dump fuel, don't they? Super Hornet is also touted as having a higher bring-back capability than Hornet, something which implies that a Hornet normally does not recover to the aicrfat carrier with the same load as while taking off. In the Bosnia Campaign many fighters dumped coslty unexpended ammo for the Italian Coast to match their bring-back capability.

They also considered Aces zero-zero ejection seats, but it still proved somewhat less practical :D

This version of the events, although perfectly plausible and a correct representation of the AF investigation, is currently disputed in court. And I would say very rightly so. There would have been no incident whatsoever if the OBOGS didn't shutdown. If you think that an OBOGS system that shuts down during combat manoevring whatsoever is an acceptable thing, you're dead wrong, as well as the US top brass that produced this very questionable and to my mind disgusting assessment. Furthermore, there is no way whatsoever we can ever know whether the statement "but he fumbled with it for too long without minding his flight. By the time he looked back up" is actually true. It is just a very plausible explanation, no hard fact. Claiming this to the detriment of a pilot's honour is very stark an attitude from a seat. I would rather be more careful before expressing thoughts about why a trained and experienced pilot failed to save his own life. I kinda guess he had a higher stake in this than we have.

+1

I will buy it of course!

Since I still have loads of fun with FC2, I will certainly buy FC3, even if the update is only modest. I guess the least we will get is some of the newer 3D models that are already in DCS series, maybe the weather engine and new mission editor. And maybe a 64-bit version.

I wouldn't worry too much though, there is little doubt they will eventually fix the hook problem. Much of the heated debate on F-35 has not much to do with the aircraft itself or its performance, but with the risky economics of concurrency between testing and production. Each major design problem that emerges during testing has a potential costly outcome if you want to retrofit delivered aircraft. To be honest, as we look into the Eurofighter and Rafale programmes, something similar has been the reality: although there was minimal concurrency, the specifications of the first tranches were so narrow, that you ended up buying aircraft only capable of training flights and very symbolic air defense. This has meant France has had to pay a lot of money to upgrade its first batches of Rafales, and that both UK and Germany are now trying to get rid of their first tranches of Typhoons, since they are honestly not very multimission capable and would need very costly upgrades.

No, but they still didn't pinpoint the cause: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201204061048usnewsusnwr201204050405f22apr06,0,5557700.story It doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of doing its job: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/22-fighter-ready-war-mystery-problem-air-force/story?id=16031774

Never read a sentence as devoid of meaning as this one: “What we are trying to do is make sure that we got the actual design of the hook is optimized so that it in fact repeatedly picks up the wire as long the airplane puts itself in position to do that,” he said. So, they are trying to fix the problem. I would have guessed so. Many in the airspace industry also try to design an aircraft so that it flies, (at least repeatedly, and of course when the pilot puts the plane in a position to do so). And then there are those that try to design a gun so that it shoots. Lockheed-Martins truly amazing advances in aviation engineering really keep my heartbeat up!

Nice video!

^^highly interesting!!!

Russian AF acquisition plans: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-03-30/russian-commander-explains-air-force-acquisition-plan

4500 F-16's delivered:

I'm still puzzled by the AI performance in FC2, which makes it very challenging indeed! See the mission and tracks below. In the first, I make the mistake to fly directly into the bandit; the Mig-29A dodges all my missiles easily, except the R-73, at that moment we kill eachother. In the second, I do it smarter and get on his tail, even then I waste 3 R-27ER (with 2 even shot in the no-escape zone), the 4th hits him but he isn't really damaged, I have to finish him off with R-27ET. A whole lot of missiles to kill a Mig-29A with the wildly superior Su-27. Almost reminding of Ethiopia-Eritrea war! FT Su-27 Migs solo.miz Su27 v Mig-29A 1.trk Su27 v Mig-29A 2.trk

Viper's track works for me; comparing Frostie's and Vipers tracks to the way I fly I notice two major differences: I do not manoevre the aircraft agressively enough and tend to fly it as an airliner; Second, I stay high while in the end game you guys get lower.

Damn, of course, now that I want to record a track I kill him spot on; but anyhow, I used the same tactics and mostly fail so maybe you can say what is bad about it; I'll look into your track in the mean time! Su-27 A2A FA-18A solo.trk

I'm back into A2A after a very long time of mud moving with Su-25T, A-10C and Ka-50. Rediscovering the maginificent Su-27, at last an aircraft with power & range, that flies above the clouds where the weather is mostly enjoyable. Big problem however: something seems to have changed between FC1 and FC2: I do not manage to win a single engagement against AI, where in the past that was a piece of cake. In the attached mission, I just fly 1 to 1 against one FA-18A Hornet. For some reason all my missiles always miss, whether it is R-27ER, R-27ET or R-73. The Hornet dodges all, then shoots me down with AIM-9M. I know you guys mostly play online, but has anyone a tip how to tackle the all-knowing AI aircraft? FT Su-27 A2A FA-18 solo.miz

OK, I see what you mean: not so straightforward for the pilot, indeed, digital avionics are all about making life easier.

Well, compared to the millions of lines of code in today's avionics, I would say even the Su-27 has straightforward avionics?

Well if "flight" is what DCS brings to simulation, than Su-27 should be very high on the list indeed. I also like the straightforward avionics, which should be very nice to model in detail in DCS.