Vympel

You may be correct, but I would be surprised if the program could have been terminated so easily if the USAF were fully behind continuation. The irony is that one of the key innovations that was intended to make the F-22 such a winner - 'integration' - may ultimately have led to its downfall.

By the time production was stopped the F-22 had very few supporters on the inside. The DoD and USAF, in particular, seemingly couldn't wait to terminate production. The resistance to do so came mainly from the politicians (and Carlo Kopp)! I have never seen anything resembling an official explanation of why this was the case, so we have to rely on scraps of information, rumours and guesswork. It certainly seems that upgrading aircraft to a later block standard, or upgrading multiple block standards simultaneously to support a new feature/weapons/sensor etc. is prohibitively expensive. So my guess is that somebody realized that it would be impossible to build a significantly larger fleet of aircraft that would ever be logistically sustainable! Whatever it was, something was seriously f****d-up about the program - and, whatever the problem is, restarting production of the F-22 is unlikely to be a solution.

I recall a business article last year stating that the major long-term driver for VR was expected to be pornography...a rather more lucrative market than flight simulators, and with big money behind it. Presumably the porno-vision haptic gloves will also work in virtual cockpits, if you don't mind the switch-gear feeling like nipples!

I'm sure that the participants on this forum who are privy to military secrets know the rules relating to their disclosure, and I'm sure that everybody else respects their right not to divulge information that they feel violates these rules. If Eagle Dynamics are uncomfortable about the content of the forums - and I understand that they might be, given that both the Russian and US military are their clients - then they can remove the offending content. Otherwise, we are all equally as entitled to discuss and speculate regarding US military aircraft as we are regarding Russian SA missiles, Chinese stealth fighters or North Korean nuclear weapons.

From limited experience, LGB's seem to be much more accurate if dropped from medium altitudes (8000ft and above). I've been able to score direct hits on armoured targets pretty reliably when doing this. At lower altitudes I often miss by several meters. I've no idea if this reflects the real-world performance of these weapons, but I'm pretty sure that this is how LGB's are typically used in practice.

Thanks. Resorting to the HTTP sites, then. I can see this is going to take some time!

I have just pre-purchased DCS:A10C but am having difficulty downloading. Some of the FTP download locations for DCS:10C are demanding authentication. I have tried the usual alternatives - including my website user account and password - but nothing seems to work. Can anybody help?

I suspect that it may be quite some time before we see a contemporary (not necessarily new) fighter aircraft modeled in DCS. The great advantage of helicopters or CAS aircraft is that quite detailed knowledge of the airframe performance or avionics capabilities is only of very limited use to a potential adversary. The same is quite definitely not true of aircraft designed for air-to-air combat. I don't believe it is an accident that the currently modeled aircraft are a semi-obsolete attack helicopter and an old - albeit recently re-furbished - CAS aircraft.

You're entitled to your opinion, but, I stand by what I wrote. Pointing out bugs, inaccuracies or errors in the simulation or documentation is fair comment - but I think it's grossly unfair to claim that the quality of the products are unreasonably shoddy, or that we are somehow being short-changed by ED regarding support.

I believe attacking helicopters flying at low altitude with bombs is actually a standard technique, as it avoids dangerous very low altitude maneuvers. For instance, it is recommended in Shaw's Fighter Combat. Of course, the objective isn't usually to score a direct hit (as in this case) - but to land the bomb within a few hundred meters of the flying helicopter, and let the blast do the rest.

Can I tweak this file to make the Vikhr launch a little louder and the flare release audible in the cockpit?

As a native (Queen's) English speaker, I have to disagree. Generally, I think the manual does a decent job - and I find complaining about a few minor spelling errors rather petty. The Ka-50 is a pretty complex aircraft, and most of that complexity is captured in the simulation. Writing a manual for such a thing is a much larger effort than I think most of us realize. ED's products aren't perfect, but they are by far the most sophisticated and realistic combat flight simulators on the market. And - more importantly - ED has shown an ongoing, long-term commitment to developing the platform further. I have difficulty understanding why anybody should believe that ED is unresponsive to sensible and constructive criticism. Alledging that this is because they are Russian is also pretty egregious. Gents, think about it. You are getting a state-of-the-art flight simulator for the price of a couple of pizzas - and then complaining about trivial problems.

If you're interested, then reading this manual (especially chapter 3) might make it a little clearer what I'm on about: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/1-112.pdf

I'd say there is an element of truth to both points of view. It would certainly be nice to have a richer briefing capability in the mission builder. Mostly this wouldn't actually require additional functionality per se, so much as a richer symbology and labeling capability. Primarily the ability to designate (effectively just label and assign a meaningful symbol to) waypoints and routes as holding areas, rally points, battle points, ABF/SBF's, flight paths etc. A good deal of material is available in US Army Field Manuals that would allow this to be done in a quite realistic manner. I'd say that - at least for SP - the main obstacle is that the primary tactical unit for most attack helicopters seems to be the company (usually six aircraft), and that the interaction between them is quite complex, and would be very hard to reproduce by means of AI. Of course this isn't an issue with MP missions. I guess the difficulty is reconciling realism with an entertaining and accessible simulation environment. Realistic missions would require a fair deal of preparation and online coordination, and a good deal of demanding and not terribly exciting disciplined flight movement. But there is nothing in the simulation that stops one from doing this.

According to the manuals, if the primary position becomes untenable they move to a secondary battle point, or withdraw to a predetermined rally point. The level of detail with which combat encounters are planned - detailed survey of the terrain and enemy position and presumed intentions, carefully planned entry and exit flight corridors, fire support, mission rehearsals etc. etc. - is quite impressive if you're used to just plinking around in a simulator. If DCS were like reality you'd have several hours of preparation before you even pressed 'Fly'.

If the field manuals are to be believed, US Army attack helicopters are also recommended to attack while at a hover from a previously selected 'Battle Point' or ABF/SBF. It seems that it isn't so much if you hover, but where you hover.