BlueRidgeDx

FO was never a scam...I and many other people worked VERY hard on the project, producing very real content. I devoted almost 2 years working full-time on FO, so it chaps my ass when people pretend that that FO is/was fake. I have no idea about the current state of things, but from late 2007 to late 2009, development was very active. I have plenty of reasons to be upset with the FO project management, so you can take the fact that I'm still willing to defend the developers and the project as reasonable proof that its not a scam.

Maybe some day you'll realize that it's as much about the way you present your argument as it is about your argument itself. Until then, I can't be bothered to research or document your perceived issue.

I'm not about to get in an Internet argument over E-M diagrams with a bunch of nerds. I'm just telling you that you interpreted the man's words incorrectly. Read it again. A Viper pilot said it's stupid for an F-15 to try and BFM an F-16. Agree or disagree with his opinion at will, but that is what he said.

Uh... you guys are reading it wrong. "It's stupid to BFM an F-15 against an F-16" literally means it's stupid to try and BFM against an F-16. The F-15 was in interceptor; the F-16 was a pure dogfighter. Nothing could match the F-16 onset rate or sustained turn rate, especially not an F-15. The author is conceding that the Eagle will eat the Viper's lunch BVR, but at the merge, the Viper reigns supreme.

When you look at a real airport at night, it usually looks like a dark hole in an otherwise brightly lit area. The runway lights, approach lights, and taxiway lights are not generally visible from above. The first thing you see when approaching an airport are the ramp/terminal floodlights. Those things are bright, and can be seen for 30 miles on a clear night. The DCS screenshot is actually very realistic, minus the excessively bright aircraft lights.

I hate it when the Wing On Computer fails...the Wing Off Light will ruin your day.

People keep saying that given current threats, A-10's can only be used - and will only be used - at medium altitude, and only after eliminating the radar SAM threat. I'm saying that in the past, we have been fortunate in that our enemies have allowed us ample time to build up forces and roll back the air defenses before it became necessary to commit A-10's to flying low altitude CAS. I'm also saying that past fortune is not something we should plan on having in the future. If the DPRK comes across the DMZ, you can bet your ass that A-10's will be raging at low altitude as necessary to support the guys on the ground. Finally, I'm saying that despite the fact that losses would be high in such a scenario, the pilots train for it; they know it can happen, and if called upon, they'll fly the mission.

My interest is waning, but I'm curious as to why you think fictional involvement in some Arab Spring scenario is "realistic", while flying in the high threat scenario the A-10 was specifically designed, built, and trained to fly in is "unrealistic"?

We're untouchable. Copy.

And you believe that we'll have the same luck in Iran, or Korea, or China? And you believe that the Iranians, Koreans, or Chinese will be equally incompetent? Again, we had the luxury of being able to wage a 100 day air war against a purely defensive enemy, following a 6 month build up of forces, and we started it on our terms. What do suppose will happen when the enemy tanks start moving at an H-hour of their choosing, and the only forces we have to respond with are the ones in theater? Do you think we won't fly CAS because the threat is too high? The last time I checked, the bulk of the Iraqi army was too busy trying to surrender to passing helicopters to put up much of a fight. Do you think the same can be said for Iran, Korea, or China? For the love of Pete, the DPRK plan to clear the DMZ minefields is to send in human waves to step on all the mines...and they're all too happy to sacrifice themselves for Dear Leader. "Quantity has a quality all its own." Edited to add the following excerpt to illustrate my point: Read the whole thing here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA425408

Sierra, Thanks for your service. It's great to have flyers here contributing. I understand what you're saying, and I think perhaps you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I don't mean "sacrifice" as in purposeful wasting of jets and lives. It goes without saying that the SPINS, WG/SQ leadership, MPC, Flight Lead and even Blue 4 will attempt to minimize the risk as much as possible; that's why I didn't say it. What I'm saying is that history shows us that pilots and crews will hack the mish despite the odds. I think its reasonable to point out the the 8th AF PLANNED on losing bombers, yet the crews did what their country asked of them. My dad was a Thud driver in SEA, and they went downtown every day despite the threat; according to the almighty Wikipedia, 382 F-105's were lost, but they continued to hit targets. A-10 pilots in Europe knew the life expectancy of a hog above 100' was about 30 seconds, but they still stepped to the jets. It's been said that they fully expected to have to walk home, and they also knew that there would be no CSAR. Here's a link to an Air University article from 1977 that outlined the expected A-10 combat losses: http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/jul-aug/dotson.html. For the record, I remembered incorrectly up above...it was 20% losses per day. What I'm saying is that when the chips are down, fighter pilots with their fangs out are not a timid bunch. They are by no means reckless, but if given the choice, they'll do what they were sent there to do.

To this day, A-10 pilots fly Low Altitude Training (LOWAT), Low Altitude Tactical Navigation (LATN) and Low Altitude Step Down Training (LASDT) sorties. Each A-10 pilot is assigned a LOWAT category, where Category I is no lower than 500ft, Category II is no lower than 300ft, and Category III is no lower than 100ft. To advance from one category to another, there is a very specific training and evaluation process. If you want to read the actual rules, check out AFI 11-2OA-10V1 Aircrew Training here: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI11-2A-OA-10V1.pdf

Revised to what? Don't shoot at an advancing enemy until/unless they can't shoot back? That works nicely against threats like Iraq and Afghanistan, but what happens if the Chonger decides to come across the DMZ? When called upon to do so, we will sacrifice jets and lives to accomplish the mission. We are lucky that the current mission does not require such a sacrifice, but that doesn't mean we won't find ourselves in that situation in the future.

Seriously? So tell me, why was the A-10 designed to fly at 100' AGL? Why does in have an "H" tail? Why does it have MRFCS? Why does it have a titanium bathtub? Why is the canopy designed to take hits? Why are the engines so widely deparated? Oh wait, I know! It's because planners envisioned it tooling along at Angels 25 in a perpetual right bank, using the TGP to stare at Hajji taking a crap in his front lawn. Or..... Maybe it was because everyone knew the A-10 couldn't survive the soviet IADS, and had to fly low. Very low. Where kids with slingshots were a valid threat. So, to say that A-10s flying in a high-threat scenario is unrealistic is without any merit whatsoever. That is the sole reason it exists. Just because we don't need it to perform in that role doesn't mean it can't or won't.

The reality is that brave men would get in jets and fly toward targets knowing that they probably weren't coming home. I thought you saw the USAF's anticipated A-10 attrition rate numbers in the Fulda Gap scenario? I posted them a few months ago; it was about a 50% loss per day. It's like asking what the doctrine would be for B-17's over Nazi occupied Europe; the answer is you suck it up and take the fight to the enemy. And lots of good people will die in the effort. For some reason, people seem to think that OEF/OIF represent the new "normal", and that we don't have to worry about things like SAMs and MiGs and flak anymore. Imagine the horror these people will feel when we have to go downtown through no-shit denied airspace, and we start losing jets. The guys who fly the jets train and are prepared for that eventuality, I think we should be too.

You sound like one of those people who believe that the current low intensity conflicts of OEF/OIF define modern warfare, as if it's "unrealistic" that we might become embroiled in an honest-to-goodness shooting war with someone who has the ability put up a real fight. As if we should bet the farm that all future conflicts will be fought against cave dwelling goat herders. The A-10 was designed, and for decades A-10 pilots trained specifically to fight at 100' AGL below the Soviet SuperMEZ. There's nothing unrealistic about operating in a denied environment since that is specifically what the airplane was designed and built for.

Additionally, with the IFFCC switch in TEST you can preselect which aircraft profiles you want to appear in the DMS rotary. Choose them from the AAS submenu.

Strictly speaking, the only time you HAVE to motor the engine before introducing fuel is 1) after an abnormal/aborted start in order to purge excess fuel from the combustion chamber, 2) when the ITT hasn't cooled below 200deg from a previous engine run, 3) when there's a strong tailwind and you're worried about a hot start 4) when the airplane is cold soaked and you need to make sure the fan rotates freely. Beyond that, the autostart system works fine. Some pilots simply prefer to perform the manual start all the time. Edit: crap, sniped by Paul.

Eddie was responding to what he (and I) perceived to be a comment saying that L-Mavs could be carried on stations other than 3/9 because they don't need any wiring, which of course is not true. It seems you interpreted the comment to mean something along the lines of "L-Mavs don't require any additional 'wiring' as compared to EO/IR Mavs", which of course is correct. I'm not sure what the poster actually meant, but I interpreted it the same way as Eddie.

Yes.

The Master Caution came on to alert you that the L/R MAIN FUEL LOW caution light(s) had illuminated. Each FUEL LOW caution light illuminates when fuel quantity in the respective tank is less than 500 pounds. There is no way to change the value at which the caution light is triggered.

Yeah, sorry for trying to provide an answer a little more meaningful than "all rockets are rockets". Next time, you guys can quibble over the categorization of rocks and beer cans without me and my high horse prancing about.

What's your point? When talking about military vernacular - and that's what we're doing - a rocket is unguided and a missile is guided. Who gives a shit what dictionary.com has to say about the matter? What in the world does calling rocks and beer cans "missiles" add to the conversation? Such a definition, while academically accurate, is meaningless in the context it is being discussed.

None of the first six posts properly define the terms as they relate to military jargon. The general definitions given differ from the accepted military definitions in common use. See below:

Etimology aside, the proper usage of "rocket" in the context of US military jargon is to describe an unguided (ballistic) rocket propelled projectile, i.e. an RPG, or the FROG/Scud. "Missile" refers to any guided weapon that generates it's own thrust. Missiles are not necessarily rocket powered, i.e. the AGM-84, AGM-86 and BGM-109. Most are rocket powered though, i.e. AGM-65, AGM-88, AGM-130, etc...