Dragon1-1

It's an educated guess, though. Those things tend to happen in Russia. I've been always saying that, but some people just can't accept that working with both Russian government and their companies is hard. Everyone who tried says just that. Oh, and we're not likely to ever hear the reasons from ED. It'll just be "resolved" and either the modules will come back to the Russian store, or not. Transparency is not a thing in Russia.

I guess all those "why don't ED make more red air?" complaints can now be redirected to this thread. I suspect that whatever happened, it's exactly why ED preferred leaving Russian aircraft to 3rd parties in the past. That it happened to an already released module doesn't bode well for doing any further business with Russia.

This means no talking on the radio.

We do know that RAM, as a rule, doesn't absorb very much. F-35 gets its stealthyness from geometry, with RAM providing a bonus. While we may not know exact specs, it should be possible to estimate from physics and public research papers on how RAM works.

He might have made it miss by outflying it. If a SAM launches at you, it means it has a solid lock. A jammer alone won't make it miss, it might make it fire at you later than it normally would and force it to use a less efficient proportional guidance method, which may make the SAM easier to dodge, but that's all.

In fact, you can safely cut the AI out of the picture, and just go straight to human written sources. AI is neither a search engine or a source of information. It's a text manipulation, text generation and pattern matching tool. These are valid uses for AI. If you want to rewrite your book blurb in corpospeak, or write the next episode of Seinfield, it'll do an OK job. If you start asking questions about reality, you'll find it pretty eager to spout BS.

If you have a 3D model, you can use open source RCS calculation software to determine that. As it happens, we know the physical shape of the F-35, so it should be quite possible to get a good estimate. There are some non-obvious factors (RAM effectiveness, radome), but that can be estimated, too.

You seem to be operating under a misconception that "neutral"="parallel to the ground". This is not the case in the Hornet. There's zero reason to force the tail to be perfectly horizontal, and this is very much not a neutral position.

It's a bit undermodeled, to say the least. Turbulence, in particular, is only about aircraft wakes, not all the interesting things that happen around clouds, for instance. Wind only blows you sideways, as opposed to flowing up and down when it hits mountain ridges, and being funneled down the valleys. This can create dangerous conditions for aircraft, for instance an downwind slope will create a downwash as the air rolls down it, which can slam you into the ground if you're not careful. It can also create vortices similar to a carrier's burble, but worse. Those can be strong enough to slam an airliner into the ground (and indeed, at least one met its fate that way). Of course, to a tactical aircraft cruising along at 20kft, those would matter relatively little. However, if said tactical aircraft tries a low level ingress, or has to drop bombs at a target in mountains, things start looking different. Helicopters would be massively affected by air currents like this, making weather a major consideration. That said, at least in its current implementation, wake turbulence is a huge performance hog, especially with many aircraft present. This is why it's often turned off in MP. This would have to be improved if the system was to be expanded. It's a good base on which other kinds of turbulence and air movements could be built, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't completely bog the sim down.

No, and idling the engines doesn't remove them.

The proper technique is to roll inverted and pull after such a climb, for precisely this reason. Most jets don't like negative Gs very much, and neither do the pilots.

SR-71 couldn't really loiter, either. Its advantage was that it could make a pass when it was needed and without advance warning, unlike satellites, which move in fixed, easy to track orbits. That said, the real reason for its existence was actually something else: film development. Spy cameras of the time, including satellite ones, used photographic film. When the film ran out, they ejected a capsule, which had to be recovered, and only then could the film be developed. With SR-71, film could be retrieved as soon as the aircraft had landed, much faster than from a satellite. With digital cameras being introduced on the KH-11, this advantage was rendered moot. Also, it's worth noting that both SR-71 and U-2 can still be very good at avoiding SAMs, simply because they fly so high. While they could be hit if they actually overfly a site (which tends to be a problem when trying to photograph something with a colocated SAM site), the WEZ at their altitude would be tiny, especially combined with SR-71's speed. It's no longer a sure thing, and you probably couldn't snap a photo of something next to a SA-10 site, but there are only so many SA-10s Russia can deploy, and not every important installation can have one smack in the middle of it.

They wouldn't send a jet without them, precisely because they wouldn't want them to get first hand experience on tracking a stealth jet, plus the point of there being an interceptor in peacetime is for it to be seen.

Except "as real as it gets" is actually an appropriate description. The FC3 F-15 is said to be the best F-15 simulation out there, and that's true. Because the last non-ED F-15 sim on the market is Jane's F-15 from 1998. Not a high bar to clear. So it really doesn't get any better. Of course, HB are aiming higher than that, and I agree, too. I don't want made up systems, I want the real stuff, modeled according to real physics and engineering.

I have a soft spot for it since ArmA2. Plus, anything USMC gets my vote, for this and other reasons. So I'm looking forward to that one.

I'm guessing the Cobra, specifically the AH-1W SuperCobra. While it does have some displays, George will be absolutely vital for it to be of any use in combat, because unlike in the Apache, the pilot only has steam gauges, a HUD and an A-10 like FMS. Only the CPG has displays to work with.

The Lima for me as well. Steam gauges FTW. Besides, the Black Hawk Down bird was a Lima. That should be reason enough to decide the matter.

You'll see a lot of that in DCS. It simulates the aircraft with all their quirks, and that involves all the crocks and bad design decisions made by the designers of the real aircraft. In this case, though, it's more or a limitation of the aircraft's weapon control systems. Remember, no computers in those days, everything was simple wires and switches.

Also, power consumption, particularly in relation to how many wires they've got. I sure hope they'd seen enough melted connectors from out of the other team to make sure not to go down the same path...

One reason why it's a waste of time to ask AI anything. Rb71 is the Skyflash, Viggen never carried the US version of Sparrow. I wish people would stop posting AI "answers", because they'll come up in search results.

It could be, there's no real standard here. Most manuals don't include RCS. MiG-21 is rather tiny, and much of the turbine disk is obscured by the cone (although it's radar-transparent because the MiG's own radar is in there, so it doesn't help as much as you'd think), so it could be on the low end.

It is. The other civilian sim is much bigger than DCS is, and it's not even the only one out there. For most people flying is apparently daunting enough, fighting doesn't even enter into it.

That's because you were flying behind him. On a jet, rear aspect shots generally won't chase flares, at least the way DCS models this. This is something you'd see before the merge, or while trying for a high aspect shot, or while attacking helicopters. I've had that happen yesterday while trying to splash a Hind. It spammed flares, and I could see the diamond get pulled off before launching when I uncaged, despite a good radar lock. Helos are harder targets for heaters in first place, so flares work much better for them.

If you can't fly a stable formation, you can't refuel, so start with that. I did AAR with a CH stick with a giant deadzone in the middle and no curves. A better stick will make it easier, but it's not necessary. In fact, try getting rid of the curves first, see if it's better then. There's no such thing as a perfect trim, but you can get close. If you release the stick, you should be able to fly smoothly alongside the tanker for at least a few moments. You'll never AAR with a constant force on the stick (this is also critical to landing taildraggers, cancel out that stick force). Closure is usually hard part. Remember, throttle movements need to be tiny, and it's a good technique to push it a little, then pull it back before you see your speed change. That way, you'll only accelerate a little. You also need to pull throttle before you actually plug, in order to stop comfortably within the zone. This is from a guy who regularly AARs in the Tomcat (a completely analog swing-wing jet, and I do it with wings in auto, no sweat). The A-10 is a lot more gentle and forgiving than that. I fly in VR, so getting a sight picture is easier there thanks to actual depth perception, but I also refueled the Viper on a flat screen in another sim, with said CH gear. It's all about figuring out how to operate you specific stick and throttle in order to keep the aircraft within the box. BTW, another taildragger tip, keep the stick held back after landing. Should stop ground loops. If this makes you lift off, you're coming in too fast.

Just finished the first one, currently doing the second. So far it worked, nothing showstopping. That said, the custom ATC can't actually manage the traffic, which can cause problems. A B-1 crashed into be after an otherwise successful mission, it literally landed on top of me. While I can understand, that it's difficult to prevent under the current ATC constraints, it remains a problem. A solution would be to set the mission as complete after landing, regardless of whether you actually taxi to the dearm area. Reflected does it that way.