OutOnTheOP

168 F-15C have JHMCS already installed. The rest of the Golden Eagle package (the radar, mostly) is supposed to be complete on 176 airframes by 2017. I haven't seen any publicly disclosed numbers on how many are already finished. Either way, I'm sure it's at least competitive (numerically) with how many Su35/ MiG35 are out there. *edit* at least 18 received the full package by 2010.

You seem to be overlooking this part:

Ok, so the walking gait wastes a bunch of energy, but out of that energy wasted, 70.8% is recovered. And? That's still a bunch of energy wasted.

...which would have nothing to do with ferrofibrous ARMOUR, would it? The point is that it doesn't help one's argument to introduce fantasy terms into a scientific argument. Also, your point about how the torso and head can be "thrown" to provide assistance inertia to a mech: just like moving the legs, that TOO takes energy. Secondly, the point that the legs only are providing propulsion half the time each (because the other half, they're moving up for the next step): also bad. A wheeled or tracked system is using all it's energy to provide forward movement; the mech is wasting energy on picking up legs and moving them up to the next step. Look, the "compliance action" tendons and all are just helping to recover lost energy to make the walking action a bit less inefficient. The tracks and wheels just don't lose that energy in the first place.

Yeah... but the Jaguar ceased being a "trainer" VERY early in it's development life. My point is that I think the developers kind of shot themselves in the foot by all competing over the same niche market rather than diversifying. You're right, lots of folk would have complained about an AN-2. I wouldn't buy it, either; it doesn't interest me. HOWEVER, I think it's realistic to assume that you would get better market share by seizing seperate niche markets than flooding one. Basically, if we say the population of simmers is 10, that 3 will ONLY buy modern combat jets, 2 will buy those or piston-engine fighters, 2 are interested in trainers, 1 in transports, 1 in CAS, and 1 refuses to buy anything unless it's period-correct for existing modules, then by the current developer plans, they're all competing for the dollars of 2 people. Each of those two probably buy one of the trainers, and overall sales hurt. By diversifying, they're competing for 7-8 people. The guy that wants transports buys the Colt, and that dev makes a sale. The guy that wants a period-correct fighter buys the Skyraider and is happy, the two that wants a trainer buys the Hawk, etc... greater overall sales, less competition between devs, everyone wins *shrug*

I really hope the option for the 75" boost Mustang becomes available at some point. ...I can only DREAM about having a -51H. 100 inches of boost!

Aaaand, you just totally lost me. Quoting fictional technologies from Battletech (a fictional game in a fictional world) does NOT help back up the science of why it would work. I may as well say "we can have battlemages, because once we invent mana...." Please, explains, what exactly IS "endo steel" (internal steel?). Or "ferrofibrous" (iron fiber? What is that, iron filings?) They aren't real technologies, they are technobabble names given to a fictitious science in a GAME. You really lose credibility when you reference fictional games to back up your science, because (true or not) it makes you look like you're arguing from a stance of fanboy-ism instead of cold rationality. ...and yes, I am a huge fan of the Mechwarrior PC games (3 is still the best!) and have several battalions of miniatures for the Battletech tabletop game. It's a cool game, and has a lot of "badass" factor to it, but that doesn't mean it's practical

No, it wasn't aimed at anyone particular... I just find it silly that people essentially tell folks to just shut up and drink the kool-ade, rather than accepting that people speaking their mind about the direction developers are taking is ultimately healthy for both consumers and developers... even though the complaints can often become tiring. I happen to think that the Hawk (and for that matter, the other trainers) will be excellent modules, individually. I'm looking forward to flying the Hawk myself. However, I do think there is something to be said about the overabundance of trainers, where a variety of aircraft of different roles would have been preferable. For instance, I would prefer to have a Hawk, an AN-2 Colt, an A-1 Skyraider, and a Jaguar, rather than have 4 trainers. Are any of those more complex to create than the trainers? I don't think so. And it would cater to a wider range of players: the people that wanted trainers and subsonic light strike get the Hawk, those that want a light supersonic deep strike and point defense light fighter aircraft get the Jaguar, those that want a transport/ civil aircraft the Colt, and CAS/ Sandy get the Skyraider (which can also be plausibly used for a dive bomber or torpedo aircraft). Are there extenuating circumstances that might preclude those particular aircraft from being made into modules? I don't know; apparently the current Skyraider owners don't feel like playing ball, and there are no Vietnam-era pilots around willing to serve as subject matter experts. But all else being equal, not really more complex than the trainers currently in development. Just my personal opinion.

Where did I ever say I thought it was easy or cheap overall? I'm aware that programming such a realistic module is a large endeavor; I said it's a simple® option compared to modern combat jets. Do you disagree that the other options are comparatively MORE complex and expensive? And you may note that I said that I quite understand that; but suggested that aircraft of similar complexity, but of greater appeal to consumers, were available. Ok, that's a pretty good reason. No one had mentioned that before. So you agree, all things being equal, it would have been an excellent choice.

LOL possibly THE worst example of a functional mech concept in the long, illogical history of mecha fantasy. If it were light enough to be a good air/spacecraft, it would have insufficient armour to make a good ground unit. Also, the rate of accelaration depicted would turn the pilots into a chunky red paste on the back of the cockpit :megalol:

I didn't call you an idiot, I said your debate tactics were as bad as idiotic American political wags. And they have been. That said, if you want to play the "he said, she said" game, do you think that your constant insistence that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is too stupid, scientifically backward, or a luddite left behind by your great vision, is somehow LESS offensive, or LESS prone to get under my skin? You may be more insiduous in the way you phrase it, but your attitude has been consistent: if you don't think mechs are useful, you're stupid, just like the people who thought trains/airplanes/whatever were impractical were stupid. At least I say what I mean upfront.

There will always be a role for armour-protected firepower platforms. The role could be filled by mecha or tanks... tanks just do it cheaper, with less moving parts, more inherent advantages, and fewer inherent disadvantages. I wouldn't say tanks are at the height of their evolution (if nothing else, active countermeasures will aid survivability), but yes: there are lots of weapons systems that can destroy tanks, so they are by no means the end-all of warfare; they are not unstoppable juggernauts. No, tanks can't dodge a decent missile or high-speed projectile, but neither can a mech, so it's a zero-sum game on that point- which is exactly what I've been saying: the "advantage" of superior "agility" doesn't actually confer any tactical advantage to the mecha. If it's still not fast enough to dodge the weapon (or deny a firing opportunity in the first place), who cares? Look at it this way: if I fire a bullet at you, does the bullet care if you're a world-class sprinter, or a fat slob? No, the bullet only cares if you can move fast enough to get out of it's way. A hit two millimeters further to the right is still a hit. You'd have to be orders of magnitude faster acceleration to make a difference. The mecha doesn't offer that. What DOES matter is the sensors-versus-stealth fight. Since neither the tank nor the mecha can dodge a shot once it's been fired, what matters is who shoots first. Who shoots first is predicated on who sees the other first. Assuming equivalent sensors, the one spotted first is the one with a larger profile presented. The mecha has the larget presented profile. Ergo, tank shoots first. Tank wins.

That was my point; I was being sarcastic in response to Malleoulus' insistence that "modular weapons" was an advantage to mecha, and his subsequent backpedaling (when pointed out that it was a logistical nightmare) that what he meant was having multiple variants that shared a same common chassis to ease logistical requirements and spare parts... which is, of course, something we already do (as I pointed out in the Bradley chassis example)

They haven't NETFIRE'd Afghanistan because the program was deemed too expensive, and put on hiatus. Realities of funding a large military involved in two wars for a decade. Also, because the organic mortars are judged to do "good enough" for the current fight. Still, they continue to develop GPS-guided (and multimode) mortar and artillery projos, which fill much the same role. I would note that mecha, also, would suffer from the "too expensive for the return you get on investment" problem. Marginal improvements for a huge investment. You're right, it's foolish to push tanks into difficult terrain, because infantry are at an advantage there. I would contend that a mecha in heavy woods of that sort is at much the same disadvantage as a tank, though: it cannot push over trees any more effectively than a tank (assuming it's of a similar weight class), so it still has to slowly pick it's way through them. It also has a lot more gangly bits hanging off it that can potentially get snagged by the trees and damaged. It can't see or shoot through the trees any better, and infantrymen in the woods can ambush it at close range with shoulder-fired AT munitions just as easily (or more, if you consider the large target profile). Does a mecha offer some additional mobility advantages in certain terrains, sure. Is it more than a small incremental improvement? Not really. Can it's "agility" allow it to dodge incoming fire, absolutely not. "Crouching" doesn't provide an advantage, it merely reduces it's profile to closer to (but still larger than) a comparable conventional vehicle. And the accellerations that would be required are practically impossible, and would probably be lethal for the pilot, assuming it carried one. Does a mecha provide tactical advantages that outweigh it's disadvantages? From where I stand, most certainly not. I'm not even convinced that the types of terrain a mecha has (arguable) mobility advantages in really MATTER: armies fight over terrain because the terrain offers an operational or strategic advantage, not just because it's THERE. High ground is advantageous... but only if it offers the opportunity to use it for observations or overwatching fires of terrain that's actually important for some reason. The only reason we've gone into mountains in Afghanistan is because in an insurgency, PEOPLE are the key terrain. In a conventional high-intensity conflict, the strategic key terrain is ultimately centers of economic, industrial, and political importance. Operational key terrain is the transportation networks (roads, rivers, ports, airports) that let you move to those strategic centers, and that allow you to supply your forces as they move to those strategic centers. Tactical key terrain is those terrain features that allow you to control those lines of communication. Ergo, why fight in rugged forest and mountains? If the enemy hides there, you isolate and bypass. They're no longer part of the war unless they come out and fight... and if they do, they're doing it on your terms, out of the difficult terrain. So, ok, a counterinsurgency light weapons carrier "mech" for mountainous terrain, sure (reference my first post on page 1; I think most of the disagreement between me and you has been semantics- I consider a "mech" to be the 40+ ton walking tank surrogates; what you're talking about, I would consider "mules" or "weapons carriers"). Usefullness of a mech in high-intensity conflict or as an armour surrogate, not really. I think a traditional "mech" (the walking tank surrogate) is useless-too many inherent disadvantages outweighing just a few marginal improvements in mobility. But a walking jeep/weapons carrier has SOME, albeit still very niche, role.

Whatever, dude. You're the one that has consistently fallen back on "you aren't smart enough to see the POSSIBILITIES" whenever inherent flaws on the concept of combat mecha are presented.

Or, y'know, a tripwire -_-

Personally, I don't see the problem with people "whining" about what aircraft is or is not being developed: it provides feedback to the developers on what we, the customers, want, and therefore points them in the direction of products likely to sell well- and results in the customers getting their hands on what they really want. It's certainly more helpful than the alternative, "everything's awesome!" approach; the attitude that all development projects, ANY project, is a brilliant idea, and that we'll "buy anything made for DCS" is just kind of dumb... because if the developers know (or at least think) that we'll buy as many copies of DCS Hawk as we would of DCS F/A-18/Typhoon/Su27/whatever, then they have no reason to instead work on what we really want. If they perceive that they can make the same sales on a simple (and cheap to develop) product as on the more complex ones, they will forever churn out only the simpler ones... business sense and all. Feedback does matter, even if it gets tiring on the forums. That said, I'm quite happy with the idea of zooming about in a DCS Hawk, and the F-86, and the MiG21... because I can think of interesting new possibilities for each. What I see as a possible problem though, is that (as the OP mentioned), this is a bit of trainer jet overdose. How many of us really need more than one trainer jet? As far as sales go, I think what we'll see is the Hawk selling pretty well... and then when the others come out, people look at them and go "yeah... but I've already got a Hawk, and another trainer isn't sufficiently interesting to pay out for", and the companies developing the late-on-the-scene trainers getting hit in the pocketbook. I agree that simple aircraft were best for starting points... but I think Belsimtek had the right idea: find an aircraft that is (system-wise) simple, but that is iconic, or was, in it's day, a premier combat aircraft. Anything 1940s-50s era would have been good choices (also probably a reason we're seeing so many WW2 offerings, most likely). I imagine that a Gloster Meteor or F9F Panther or MiG-15 or A-1 Skyraider or A-4 Skyhawk or early-model Jaguar (assuming I'm correct in recalling it was sans ground-mode radar) would be of comparable difficulty to develop as a Hawk or L39, but would sell much better, because they capture the public imagination (not least of which because they all are historically appropriate for at least one major conflict each- and OTHER aircraft applicable to those conflicts already exist in DCS, awaiting companions. Some, like the Skyraider and Meteor are applicable to two major conflicts!). I think the Hawk was a good idea (and plan to buy it)... but more armed trainers, of lower performance, following so quickly on it's heels? That doesn't seem like the greatest recipe for sales. The only reason I can figure they would go with a bevy of trainers, yet pass up a juicy pick like the Skyraider (two major wars, huge time in service, very iconic, simple avionics) is that they had access to experts and performance data on the trainers... but I know for a fact there's still flying Skyraiders out there, so you don't run into the "there's no info available!" problems. Just my two cents. *shrug*

It's always good to see people talking some sense. ...now, I wish they'd look at things with the same perspective when talking about other hot-button systems like F-22 *rolls eyes* And while overall mishap rate has been excellent, I do agree with the earlier poster; it's somewhat odd that there's two at the same field, but not at other fields operating the type. Just coincidence, or is there something about that field (or the unit operating off of it)?

...and funny enough, almost exactly what I outlined as the closest thing to a truly useful "mech", back on page one. Third post. I believe.

Oh, so you mean like building the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Linebacker air defense vehicle, (newer versions of) Paladin artillery system and MLRS artillery rocket launcher on the same chassis and drivetrain? ...Yeah, you're right. We could NEVER do that with conventional vehicles.

And this is STILL less useful that the far more technologically simple solution: a C-17 flies over, seeds the valley with a half-dozen NETFIRES-style launcher packs, and the two squads of infantry walk in with a laser rangefinder/GPS locater/transmitter per man. When they see a target, they transmit to NETFIRES, and it engages with precision missiles on demand. Instead of engaging two targets at a time with 7.62mm from a platform that can be easily engaged by all those enemies on the battlefield, you have the ability to engage 18 targets (one per infantryman) simultaneously with a far more lethal weapon... and one which doesn't require a direct line of sight to hit the target. Sorry, but it's really not all THAT useful.

You keep going back to "it can step over obstacles" as the reason a mecha would be superior. But a tracked vehicle can, as a general rule, climb any obstacle lower than about 75%-80% the height of it's track system (depending, of course, on roadwheel and idler layout). This means that a conventional tank can cross an obstacle up to roughly 1/3-1/2 it's own height. The M1 Abrams, for example, can climb a 39 inch vertical obstacle. That's 41% it's overall height. And the Abrams has a TALL turret. If we're just talking hull height, a tracked vehicle can climb an obstacle that is VERY proportionally tall. On the other hand, how high an obstacle can you step over? 1/3 your height or so? Unless you make a walker that is all legs, it's not going to have a WHOLE lot better ground clearance or vertical obstacle clearance. *edit* looks like Shurugal already provided some useful ground clearance comparisons earlier... man, I REALLY have to catch up on the thread and THEN go back and respond.... ...and please don't say "oh, it would just plant it's hands onto and VAULT the obstacle". As if a building will support the weight of a 40+ ton mecha...

Yes, they WERE slow, and they WERE fuel inefficient. But they did something useful: they provided armoured transport across terrain where no other military element could traverse, and they carried firepower sufficient to destroy enemy defenses. You are absolutely FULL of it if you think the first tanks were either unarmed, or were primarily designed to transport troops. Neither is true. Also, exhaust venting into the crew compartment (and poor ventilation, and poor heat management) is a DESIGN flaw, not a CONCEPT flaw. None of those are inherent to the concept of a tank, they just happened to be poorly designed on the earliest tanks. Early tanks had design flaws. The entire idea of large mecha has a number of serious CONCEPT flaws.

Insects have central nerve clusters just like mammals... they're just smaller and less developed. Just because they run the length of the body doesn't make them "decentralized". Saying they have distributed nervous systems is like saying *I* have a distributed nervous system because I have nerve endings in my fingertips. It's not a bunch of interchangeable nerve cells evenly distributed through their body or anything like that.

REALLY? There was already, in 1914, a weapon system that could safely transit the beaten zone of multiple machine guns, carried sufficient firepower to disable machine gun nests and other hardpoints, and could clear a path through barbed wire obstacles? And do all these tasks more efficiently and at less loss of forces? Please, pray tell, what was the name of this fanciful machine?