Dragon1-1

Doubtful. Combat experience is not a panacea, and trying to learn combat by trial and error usually ends with one of those errors killing everyone. Yes, those who did survive no doubt ended up with useful experience, but that, in itself, won't fix their outdated doctrine, the holes in their initial training (which could suggest things they'd never even think of trying otherwise), nor will it fix poor tactical decisions by their commanders, or poor management by their high command, which often ends up diluting both the experience and any Western training they might have received. I'd expect Polish and US forces to perform better, even if they had to use the same vehicles, mostly because they operate under a doctrine that was actually designed for the Abrams. Ukrainian tank loses are the price paid for figuring those things out as they go. Yeah, except the APS, extra ERA, airburst rounds, programmable ammo and wide angle displays. SEP v2, true (though it's still got better sensors than the M1A1s they've got), but SEP v3 is quite fancy. Even if the crews had trouble using the new toys effectively, the Trophy APS is by itself a great boon to survivability.

I heard it was about the cost, the F-14 being a rather expensive aircraft. Seeing as even the early Tomcat did have ground attack capability, or at least the fittings for strapping bombs to them, it'd be a strange reason for USMC to pull out. More than that, it was projected as the platform that would carry the AGM-53 Condor. The missile ended up being too expensive and got canceled, but it was tested (from an A-6).

Tomcat was an "F/A" from the start, it was marketed to the USMC, there was an ad with a drawing of an F-14A loaded up with bombs. As far as its contemporaries went (as opposed to much later designs), it was definitely not inferior in that role. In fact, with CCIP it had a big advantage over the Phantom, the bombload was plenty, and being the Tomcat, it could go in fast, even with bombs in the tunnel. The Marines didn't end up buying it, and it took the USN a while to rediscover the idea, but it was already fitted for the job.

I'm not sure this is correct behavior. Does HOT have an internal autopilot that would allow it to fly straight after the wire is cut? I'd expect that with the wire cut, the control surfaces would stop moving, usually meaning the missile would miss.

Stealth and AESA will be reasons enough to pick the F-35, even if the loadout selection is scant.

This is expected. In rear aspect, the missile is looking straight up your tailpipe. There's only so much a flare can do, the engine gives out a lot of heat, and if the missile has a good look at its innards, it won't chase flares. Flares are only good against missiles launched from suboptimal aspects, so beam at most, and only if you're not in burner.

I don't know about the Yak-52 (it's a bit of an oddball, anyway) or the others, but the L-39's training missions, and the Kursant campaign, are based on real courses. Of course, this is oldtimey Soviet military flight school, but it does teach good techniques. A succession of trainer aircraft, even. A typical jet won't teach you about coordinated flying, since it's mostly automated nowadays. Even the F-5 is generally flown with feet off the pedals. Of course, to appreciate how great a feature it is, you need to fly a simpler prop plane. Most trainers in DCS are for preparing you for tactical flying and a transition to fighters, not teaching basic principles of flight. Yak-52 is the sole exception, but it seems to be rather neglected by ED. Given its state, you probably made a mistake buying the Yak-52, period. As a module, it's unfinished and ED doesn't seem to care much about it. With modern quality training missions, it could be a wonderful introduction to aviation for DCS, but as of now, it's old and unloved.

We're saying completely different things. I'm saying that pilot's can't "fly in a way that hides some capability". If that French pilot got in a jet equipped with missiles, his flying would have revealed classified information. So he refused to, he and GS only ever fought with guns. One of the other YouTubers also doesn't do videos flying the jet he actually flew (I think it was the Hornet), lest he accidentally use some trick that he's not supposed to reveal. Holding back is simply not something fighter pilots do, especially not in a dogfight, when one has to think really fast. There's no time to think "can I do that move, or is it classified?". You figure out your gameplan, and then apply your training in order to get there. Consciously limiting performance in any way would be very difficult. No, you didn't. You did not say anything about the crews, just that the tanks are older models. The truth is, since those models, Abrams didn't improve that much. Sure, the top of the line model has plenty of new tech added on, but older versions are still very solid vehicles, competitive against their Russian counterparts. If Ukrainians got the most modern Abramses, it likely wouldn't have improved much, because their operators are the limiting factor.

All those reasons tell us why there wasn't a "Tomcat 2.0" made, but rather they went all in for the Hornet. It doesn't change the fact the Tomcat had to be replaced with something, because the wing boxes couldn't take a whole lot more carrier traps. It already had parts failing that were never expected to break within the airframe's useful life. They'd have to start building new airframes anyway, and they probably would have wanted a newer one, with all the latest advances in aerodynamics. There was a proposal to order additional, newly built F-14Ds with further upgrades, but it was absurdly expensive. We'll see if the F/A-XX survives the chainsaw, but it could provide a modern equivalent to the Tomcat. Doubt it'll look quite as cool, though.

Right, 11 years, then. In any case, mid-2000s.

That's how it should work. If not using using the radar, you should also see the seeker diamond track the flare.

Will the heaters tracking flares before launch be a thing in the next patch?

Fine, I ask one thing of you: don't accuse other people of anything, ever again. It'll be easier that way. We are paying attention, all right, and so far you offered exactly zero support for any of your accusations, instead trying to baffle people with BS, bogus "logic" and JMSU. Not a shred of real evidence, just a lot of handwaving. Quit that, and your condescending tone, and all will be fine.

They kept them around for nine more years after that, though. The Tomcat was retired in 2004, at which time the airframes were really showing their age.

Usually, by having $5M to spend on the plane, plus change for the license to fly it. If you're the kind of person who throws $5M around, passengers are easy to come by, too. GA is a miscellaneous lot, you have people who take flying seriously, and them you have those for whom the plane is just a status symbol and a fun toy. The latter are unlikely to invest in learning how to properly operate it in all but the simplest situations. Avoidable goofs are bad in commercial airlines, but as far as GA goes, the only universal standard is having the money. In theory, the pilots' license is supposed to indicate basic competence, but the same can be said of driver's licenses.

Note that the Viper only works like that with gear down, because you could scrape the speedbrakes on the runway a bit too easily otherwise. If you deploy the speedbrakes fully with gear up, they'll stay open.

The problem might be focusing too much on normal operations and not enough on emergencies and unusual scenarios. DCS is nice in that it throws you into a variety of situations, and if you get hit, you may have to deal with any number of failures. Some airlines do that, some decide to skimp on it, and pilots don't always fill that gap on their own accord.

Actually, they would have been glad to keep them around, despite all those reasons. The real problem was that the airframes were so worn out they were simply unsafe to fly from a carrier. Witness the progressive reduction of the G limit with each revision. Carrier traps are very stressful on the aircraft, and the metal can only take so much. They had to retire them before they started coming apart mid-flight, or worse, during trap or a cat shot. Land based Iranian Tomcats lasted for longer because dry hangars and long runways don't but as much stress on the metal, particularly the wing box, than flying from the boat.

Or it might be a transliteration of a Russian transcription, which when pronounced in English produces the wrong sounds. The peculiarities of English pronunciation mean that in order to get something that sounds right when said aloud, you usually have to mangle the spelling. Using the spellings the US military did is probably the way to go, that's what people will be familiar with. The locals probably won't care for how the name is rendered in English, since there seems to be no preferred transcription in most cases. It's not restricted to Afghanistan, BTW. Ask a Vietnam-era Phantom jock about Xépôn or Sepon, you'll be lucky if he's heard of it. Ask him about Tchepone, and it'll be a different story. For what it's worth, "Tchepone", when said with an American accent, should actually sound more like the original (Lao) name than "Sepon" (and good luck trying to get them to pronounce "Xépôn").

Why not both? It'll probably be a full module, and HB has a good record of including multiple variants. So maybe we'll get both, especially since S is an improved J.

Yes, and none of them are quite as unforgiving as DCS is. Try the Spitfire in the other WWII sim, then in DCS, and you'll see. Remember, that other WWII sim was (or rather, its predecessor), for a long time, the benchmark for realism in flight simulation in general, not just WWII. That was the best we had. They also start you with a very docile Yak-1 or LaGG-3. While people coming over from that sim will fare better than a complete rookie, DCS doesn't simplify low speed handling like their previous one does, plus it models prop torque, a major omission in practically every other WWII sim. From personal experience, I couldn't figure out how to avoid ground-looping the Spit on every landing until I went back to basics and to less powerful planes. Still a handful, but at least I can land straight. And I was hardly a rookie when I started tackling it. Others are more forgiving (mostly because they have tailwheel locks), but only just, except the Mossie, which is even meaner if mishandled.

Turnabout left/right -> in place left/right, or hook left/right (USN and USAF, respectively) Rotate -> cross turn 90 left/right -> tac left/right (though 90 left/right is correct, too, as it is for other angles) 30 left/right -> check left/right 30 Widen -> Kickout (USAF, not sure about USN) Shackle is the same everywhere, as is Close Up. Note that this list is compiled from various sources, including CNATRA docs, Speed and Angels, and the other Viper sim.

This part was in response of you suggesting starting with a WWII plane. For that particular case, DCS doesn't even have a decent trainer. The F-16 is really easy to fly. The Spit? Only as long as you don't try to take off, land, or fight in it (and even then, you need to know about trim). In fact, WWII fighters in general, for someone coming from less realistic titles, will be a struggle. DCS could use a taildragger that won't try to kill you before you're even off the ground, which is to say something like the O-1E. I think the L-39 might have been intended as a sort-of entry point, being the original trainer module. Most people pass it over, but I do think a trainer it can make you a better pilot if you put your mind to it.

Does it just copy DCS menu verbatim, as usual, or can we use US terms as well?

You'd be wrong, especially these days. Really, we've got it good in DCS, in that people here are somewhat willing to learn the ropes. Gaming world at large? Duh, that's why it's a trainer and COIN aircraft. Doesn't change the fact it can dodge flak just fine, can avoid SAMs (if the pilot knows where they are) and can terrain mask. With proper support and planning, you can use it against a peer adversary. You just have to actually do all the things you should be doing when planning an A-10 mission more interesting than a standoff JDAM/LGB/Mav truck.