OutOnTheOP

Personally, I'd avoid the 6.8. First, as you mentioned, it costs an absolute ass-ton to shoot, even if you handload. Second, the bullet weight it's lofting is downright rough on an AR15 action. But most important, it doesn't GIVE you anything. A Sierra 77 grain HPBT fired from a 5.56x45mm shoots much flatter, has much less wind drift, the ammo costs a third as much, weighs 30% less, has damn near twice the ballistic efficiency, about 80% as many Newtons of energy on it at the muzzle as the 110 grain 6.8 SPC, just as much energy at 150-200 meters, and has MORE energy at all ranges beyond that. The 6.8 bullet is short, squat, and terribly unaerodynamic, just like the 123 grain 7.62x39 bullet. It is so draggy it loses all of it's energy in the first hundred meters. As to long range shooting... well, the AR15 is a fantastic- and incredibly precise- rifle (one of my favorites), but if you mean long-range as in "beyond 500 meters", I'd go to a larger caliber. The 77 grain HPBTs give the AR15 good reach to 500 or 600 meters, but you're still better off with a 7.62x51 or one of the dedicated target calibers. 6mm PPC is fantastic, and I've heard a lot of good things about the 6.5 Creedmore.

as I understand the physics, the weight of the aircraft has NO impact on maximum speed in level flight. Only drag and thrust. Weight only impacts accelleration in level flight. Obviously, a heavy aircraft wouldn't maneuver or climb as well. Anyhow, point is the drag factor and thrust are identical regardless of how much (internal) fuel or weapons are carried. Therefore, maximum speed is also unaffected. The time it takes to GET to maximum speed might be a little increased, is all. *edit* in fact, if we're talking pure aerodynamic efficiency, as measured in the world of projectile ballistics, a heavier weight-to-drag ratio is preferable. But that's for unpowered, ballistic projectiles, so your mileage may vary.

My chatroom handle here is from my days as a forward observer/ fire supporter, because out on the observation point was where I did my best work. As for my flight callsign, my old FO/FSO radio callsign was Bronco 53, and my most recent radio callsign was Devil White 2. Horses+Devils... well, I could have gone with "Horseman" or "Apocalypse", in reference to the four horsemen, but both were company callsigns in my old unit. So I figured it would be either "Night Mare" or "Hellhorse". Given that I'm also something of a Battletech fan, I went with Hellhorse. (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Clan_Hell's_Horses)

The same could be said about the F-16 in relation to the MiG29. In both cases, there's still a key difference, though: The F/A-18 and F-16 are true multirole fighters with significant air-to-ground role. The MiG29 doesn't have a real air-to-ground role. Alternatively, they could do F-15E followed by Su30. Better match in capabilities and role, I think. Hard to get a real even match in role, though; the USAF makes a lot of multi-role aircraft, the Russians make a whole bunch or more specialized airframes.

I agree, intriguing idea, though it will require a lot of "referee" overwatch An idea for the MSFS unarmed (I won't say civilian, because they may be flying mil aircraft like C-130 or something) guys: Have the MSFS pilot's route flown in the LO environment by an AI analogue first, then have the MSFS pilot fly his mission the next day, based on the results of the LO AI flight, with challenges or in-flight emergencies applied to reflect the results of the AI mission. For best effect, the penalty should be a surprise to the MSFS pilot; he shouldn't know what emergency or challenge he has to deal with until he's already in the air- particularly since a lot of those challenges would realistically involve changing his flight plan on the fly to avoid threats. If the AI analogue aircraft is attacked and damaged or destroyed in the LO environment, the MSFS pilot then flies his route with "penalties". I haven't flown an MSFS simulator (other than MS Combat FS 2) since probably 1995, so I'm not sure if MSFS has the capability to simulate various inflight emergencies. If it does, then if the AI analogue is damaged in the LO environment, the MSFS pilot then has to fly the mission and deal with some appropriately serious in-flight emergency. Successfully handling the in-flight emergency (and then landing successfully) means the transport pilot evaded or survived the attack and succeeds at it's mission. If the AI analogue aircraft is approached within 50 nm by an A2A-capable enemy aircraft, the penalty could be to direct that the MSFS pilot must fly the portion of the route where enemy interceptors were within 50nm NOE without exceeding 300 ft AGL. If the MSFS pilot fails to keep under the specified altitude, he then has to deal with an in-flight emergency same as if his AI analogue in LO had been damaged. As a way of rewarding the success of the MSFS pilots and making them more integral to the campaign, allocate or allow better munitions to the LO, BS, and WH pilots on the next day or "round" of missions. IE, if only 75% of the previous day's/round's MSFS flights succeed, LO pilots can only carry 2 top-end BVR missiles (AIM-120/AA-12), A-10s cannot carry CBU97/105 and are limited to 2 AGM65, and BS pilots carry only 2 pylons loaded. If less than 50% succeed, LO pilots get only 2 low-end BVR missiles (AIM-7/AA-10), A-10s cannot carry any CBU97 or guided munitions, and BS pilots cannot carry any Vikrs. Optionally (or in addition), mission creators could modify the quantity or quality of ground units and AI based on the success rate of MSFS flights.

...but only if the tank was made in Soviet Russia. :D

I don't have ANY information on ED making heavy bomber. I was merely pointing out that it makes sense to have the full gamut of roles/ airframe types for one nationality or enduring coalition (or for two opposing nationalities or coalitions) completed before moving on to third party nations so as to have some commonality for the massive multiplayer virtual war environment that is the stated end goal of the DCS project. That said, it's pure speculation, but to accomplish that goal (the massive multiplayer virtual war), one would need to simulate heavy bombers- and even SAM systems, JTAC vehicles/ personnel, main battle tanks, IFVs, and infantrymen. But sticking to aircraft, yes, a heavy bomber would be an logical (if only eventually) release *edit* then why would you even say something about wanting "not Russian or US for a change"? I mean, what's different on a UK Chinook versus a US one? I very much doubt it goes far beyond the paint scheme. US ones have add-on flare dispenser packets in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I suspect the door gunners are better armed in some of the US ones (does the UK put M134 or .50 cal in helicopter door mounts?) but other than that...? Maybe UK version is the legacy cockpit instead of the newer "glass" cockpit? If you want a UK heavy lift helo, go with Merlin or something.

No, the UH-60 definitely had a checkered past, mechanically. Something about the elevator aerodynamic surfaces giving uncommanded down-pitch at high speeds. That, and the older models had much, MUCH less available power than the newer models.

An INDIVIDUAL civilian outfit may fly an INDIVIDUAL airframe, or even a handfull of airframes, at a higher flight-hour rate than an INDIVIDUAL military airframe. However, they do not fly enough aggragate hours on an individual model for the aggregate crash record to draw news. Maybe if every civilian company used the same airframe, but some use Bell 206s, some use MD500s, some use EC130s, some use Daufin, et al. For that matter, it doesn't make news at ALL if a civilian helicopter with two or three persons aboard goes down. ANY time a military helicopter goes down, it's news. Also, according to US Army accident rates from a 2001 Army Aeromedical Research Lab publication, the Blackhawk has only a slightly higher accident rate than the Chinook, and less than half the accident rate of the Apache. Yet the Apache has never managed to gain a reputation for "falling out of the sky like rain". I would be equally interested to know the crash rates for, say, Mi-8/17. Though I rather doubt some of the operators bothered to maintain (or at any rate, publish) crash records.

Have and would. The UH-60 is relatively reliable, as helicopters go, and is one of the most crashworthy airframes out there, so when it DOES crash (and let's face it, all aircraft crash at some point or another), you're more likely to walk away. The only reason people think the Black Hawks crash all the time, is because Black Hawks FLY all the time. Who else operates helicopters with anywhere NEAR as many flight hours (both total and per airframe)? The local news channel? The local air ambulance? Some rich tycoon? Really? No one else does, or can afford to, fly so many rotary-wing hours. So when you have 100x as many UH-60s flying 200x as many total hours as any other helicopter, in rougher conditions and under more demanding mission profiles, if there are 10x as many crashes, should this REALLY be considered a bad record?

Good point on the Army only, but even then there's exceptions; the OV-10 Bronco and O-2 Skymaster come to mind as fixed wing.

I find that very, VERY hard to believe. Show me where the official US Air Force ordnance registry indicates that only 6 have been dropped in combat. They may have only been used in one short conflict, but I very much doubt only 6 have been dropped.

I guarantee more than 6 have been dropped. I AM familiar with the engagement slackerD is referring to (an advancing US column ran into a scattered force of IFVs, which turned out to be an Iraqi armor force unloading from a train yard), but I assure you it's not the only instance in which they were used; Iraq had significant armor forces even in 2003, and there would have been numerous times the CBU97 would have been the most appropriate ordnance. However, I'm not sure where to look up ordnance expenditures by type. That said, I can also guarantee they weren't dropped in ODS (first gulf war). Their first operational deployment was in Operation Allied Force, and none were actually used, they were just available. I'm pretty sure they haven't even MADE 20,000 of them. Unofficial production data I've seen says 5,000.

hate to burst your bubble, but Chinook IS US designed and built. Has been since the '60s. Built by Boeing Vertol. Quick check; if it's a helicopter, and it's named after an American Indian tribe, it's probably of US origin. That means Apache, Kiowa, Iroquois (proper name for the "Huey"), Cheyenne, Commanche, Cayuse, Black Hawk (both an informal name for the Sauk tribe, and was the name of their leader during the war of 1812, when they fought on the side of the British, AND the name of an alliance of tribes that fought in Utah in the 1860s. Confusing, no?) There's exceptions, of course: the AH-1 Cobra isn't named after a tribe (though it was called the "Iroquois Warrior" in development), and the V-22 Osprey isn't named after a tribe, though the "V" designation instead of "H" leads me to believe it's treated as a fixed-wing aircraft rather than a helicopter. That said, something of European design would be nice, yes. HOWEVER, I would prefer to have one nation with a full stable of aircraft before moving on to another. That way you can engage in real combined operations. It would be kind of a cludge having to use a Russian attack helicopter, Japanese scout helicopter, US CAS aircraft, British strike fighter, Chinese interceptor, and French multirole fighter all on the same team. That'd be just wierd. They're better off doing it like they are: Russian attack helo, US CAS aircraft, US multirole fighter, Russian multirole fighter, Russian CAS aircraft, US strike fighter, Russian Strike fighter, US heavy bomber, Russian heavy bomber, and THEN do European multirole fighter, attack helo, CAS aircraft, and strike fighter (I can't really think of any modern European heavy bombers) in that order.

totally agreed, 30 rounds of 9x19 aren't going to do the trick, but the Mythbusters testing was poorly executed. They went from offhand submachine gun (too weak and so unstable most of the rounds aren't even hitting the tree) to small-caliber bipod-fired machine gun (still going to be poor distribution on the target, depending on the skill of the shooter) straight to minigun. I assure you any general purpose machine gun on a tripod with a T&E mechanism will do the trick. Just give it 30-50 rounds, a click on the traverse wheel, 30-50 more, another click of traverse, repeat a couple times= no more tree. Or just get ma deuce. =P

Imac, I suspect not. If there were, we wouldn't (shouldn't) have issues with Mavericks ignoring a tank to lock on personnel standing next to it. But I can't imagine adding one line of code to the vehicle database files denoting what they are (building, vehicle, person, etc) would be all that difficult... unless of course code is referenced by line number in the database files, which would be very inconvenient indeed

I strongly suspect the picture is a graphical depiction of the relative COSTS of the weapons, and is in no way related to their impact pattern or target effects. Hence the $1000 reference datum. It would also explain why the GBU series and Mk series are disproportionate. Mk84: $3,100 GBU-12: $19,000 GBU-38: $35,000 GBU-38: $60,000 AGM-65: up to $160,000 CBU97: $360,000 *edit* which leads me to believe slackerD is either TOTALLY confused, or is "exaggerating" his role in creating the graphic

Seriously? People are complaining about the ability to model a 2-seater with a WSO. You'd like them to do an accurate simulation of a gunship with a 12-man crew? Even if you took out the "grunt" positions, you have a pilot, copilot, EW officer, fire-control officer, TV operator and FLIR operator that would all need to be modelled. That's... a bit much. Especially for an aircraft with a very limited mission profile and capability for operation in only the most forgiving AA environment.

GG, now that I think about it more, there's actually a better way to model the CBU97 skeets. You don't really have to use probability equations or attempting to simulate the IR sensor sweep through the skeet's flight. Start with the CBU97 dispensing 40 submunitions (pretty much like it does now, except I think it tosses 20-some-odd). Have each run a check a couple times a second to see if it's within activation range of a valid target (IE, a vehicle. Buildings shouldn't even activate the things... though a generator or A/C unit on a building might?). If the bomblet is within, say... 25 meters of a valid target, the bomblet detonates (airburst) with a tiny blast radius and tiny damage, and spawn a KE projectile aimed at the closest vehicle. Alternately, do away with the projectile and just have the game deal damage directly to the vehicle as a script. When you get right down to brass tacks, the CBU97/ 105 should be treated less like a bomb and more like 40 invisible airborne AI tanks with one round of ammunition each

The problem right now is the programming doesn't allow accurate modelling of the CBU97/ CBU105. There's a number of issues. The REAL CBU97 should be extremely lethal against armored vehicles in a wide footprint. To do this, they're giving it a large damage (to kill tanks) and large blast radius (to provide the wide footprint). The problem is this results in a lot of AREA damage over a wide area, while the REAL CBU97 should do a lot of damage to multiple PINPOINT targets spread over a wide area. There are several ways to fix this issue: 1) the ideal; realistically model the system. Make the bomb disperse 40 bomblets that each seek a target and do massive damage with almost no blast area. Of course, this will STILL result in unrealistic effects against buildings and ships as it stands now; as best I can tell, a hit ANYWHERE on a building or ship has the same affect regardless of where it hits. So direct hits would still sink ships. Truth told, though, an EFP hit on a ship WILL penetrate through-and-through into the water. It just wouldn't be a very big hole. Same with a building. 2) Implement both "damage" and "armor piercing" variables to weapons in the game, and correspondingly "hit points" and "armor" to targets. Maybe this is already implemented, I don't know. Either way, a CBU97 should have massive "armor piercing" but low "damage, while a Mk84 should have puny "armor piercing" but huge "damage". In turn, a tank should have massive "armor" but relatively low "hit points", while an average building should have almost no "armor" but incredibly high "hit points". To me, this seems like the easiest and most efficient solution to ensure that various weapons have realistic effects on various targets. Speaking of which, it'd be nice if anti-radiation missiles didn't home on non-radiating targets (ZU23, SA9, SA13, MANPADS, etc) and if IFVs didn't employ ATGM against personnel. That's just silly.

Personally, I see plenty of use for NOE flight. Anything bigger than an SA8 warrants it, if you ask me. Now, if SEAD has (or is in the process of) killing all those, then sure, keep high... but not too high. You need to be able to make it back down into the weeds in a hurry if a MiG or unexpected SA11 shows up. I find angels 15 is about as high as I want to go; any more than that and the missile will reach me before I reach the dirt. ...Which, of course, will still result in me reaching the dirt, just in a significantly more incindiary manner than desired. Personally, I have more issues with the SA6 and SA11 than anything else, and staying low is the way to go with them. You'll never out-altitude them, you'll never outrun them, and you'll never out-maneuver them. Even SA3 is pretty nasty in those regards, albeit much more vulnerable to countermeasures. So, you acquire them from outside their range, load them as a markpoint, and make your ingress masked by terrain, popping up only long enough to shoot. Mavericks are good, but prone to being shot down by more advanced SAM like SA15 or SA11. Guns work remarkably well. If it's in REAL rough terrain, Mk82 AIRs or CBUs work. I avoid the WCMD as the engagement takes too long and is harder to manage for snapshot engagements. Bombs wouldn't be my first choice, and I wouldn't try them against an SA15, but against an SA3, 6, or 11, if you take them by surprise with a real close-in pop-up out of terrain, they won't be able to traverse and fire fast enough. I actually vastly prefer the AIRs over the slicks for most targets just because you can deliver them with a much lower pop-up, much shorter run-in, and a lot less exposure to whatever radar-guided nasties might be in the area. As to MANPADS... well, I'd rather face a (relatively speaking) low-performance, low-speed, and puny (contact fuzed) warhead than a mach 3+, high performance, energy-to-spare, proximity fuzed SA11. Honestly, I've never had trouble evading SA18. I'm not sure why they keep popping up on the forums portrayed as such a scary, inevadable terminator of the skies. They almost never hit me, and when they do, almost never do truly serious damage. AAA? Well, unless you're dumb enough to fly straight (or unlucky enough to find yourself in the middle of a 4+ ZSU flak trap) they're not that scary. After all, the gun has to predict where you'll be several seconds from the time of firing. Once that bullet leaves the muzzle, it's going where it's going. Just don't be there when it gets there! But SA3, 6, or 11? The ONLY time I've survived those bastards is when I hid cowering behind a mountain. You just can't escape them any other way. *edit* Regarding finding targets from NOE being difficult in the A-10? Seriously? It's probably THE easiest airframe to do so from; that's part of why it was designed to fly slow. As long as you have a JTAC giving you a target grid to get you pointed in the right direction with a grid- or even better, with smoke- finding targets from NOE is EASY. Just fly your 30 degree offset approach to the pop-up point using the JTAC grid AS your target, and acquire the individual pinpoint target visually in the pop-up. You'll have 5-8 seconds between initiating your pop-up and rolling in; if the JTAC gave you a half competent grid and/ or mark, that's more than enough. *edit 2* also remember, A-10 tactics developed for fighting insurgents who have no anti-air weapons with a higher ceiling than a 23mm do not equal tactics for fighting a first-rate army with proper air defense. Likewise, A-10 tactics that worked in southern Iraq, where the most prominent terrain features are 20 meters tall do not equal tactics developed for fighting in western europe, where there are plenty of mountains, hills, and valleys. Next time you're whizzing about Georgia, note the mountains. They make great missile shields =D

Truth told, the most impressive Active protection I've seen is the FCS Quick Kill system. Not sure if it's still being developed. It's designed to intercept the incoming projectile with a guided missile; the only test footage I've seen is a VERY close-in engagement, though. Either way, it uses directional blast rather than projectiles or fragmentation, and is a lot more infantry-friendly. Would cause some concussions and probably ruptured eardrums, but not likely to shred a squad the way Trophy would. Still needs work, though... if you ask me, they need to combine the Quick Kill interception method with the Iron Curtain vertical attack profile to get an active defense system that is workable with armor/ infantry combined operations.

The US Army already tested Trophy and said "we'll pass on it, thanks". There's a number of flaws with it. First, it requires a constant active radar system to activate. That means your tanks are ALL very easy to find with any kind of SIGINT or JSTARS type asset. Never a good thing. Also, I can pretty much guarantee that at least one of the multiple radar transcievers required for 360* coverage is going to be damaged by brush or careless crewmen, or obscured by stowed equipment. Second, the kill mechanism is little more than a big claymore mine. This means you get one shot and then have to reload your dischargers. It also means it's a hit-or-miss affair, as you have to kind of hope the pattern of pellets is uniform enough that one of the pellets connects the target projectile. Third, limited range. It may be effective against HEAT warhead rounds that need to get very close to the target to be effective, but an Explosively Formed Projectile as used by the CBU-97, TOW-2B, or easily retrofitted onto a Maverick (simply swap out the HEAT warhead and add a simple laser proximity fuze pointing straight forward) would detonate a good 20 to 30 meters away, outside the effective radius of the Trophy countermeasure. Fourth, "effective against kinetic weapons"? Bullsh*t. A spray of 0.02 pound (total swag on my part, assuming a .30 to .35 inch diameter; slightly larger than a claymore) pellets isn't going to significantly disrupt the terminal effects of a 30 pound APFSDS penetrator rod travelling Mach 8 or a 5 pound copper EFP slug travelling Mach 30. The video is clearly a manufacturer's advertisement. Of course they stage it to make their product look good. It's similar to the situation surrounding "Dragon Skin" body armor. Despite catastrophic failure in Army testing on some 7 of 30 test shots, despite weighing 40% more than the issue armor it was competing against, and and despite comprising some 135% the volume/ bulk of the issue armor, the company marketing it managed to convince so many ignorant civilians and family of soldiers of it's superiority that there were Congressional inquiries and legal proceedings to explain why the Army hadn't given the soldiers the "best" armor. Pure bullsh*t. *edit* Oh, I forgot one of the other major flaws of Trophy: since it uses a shotgun blast of pellets to defeat incoming rounds, it's a HUGE collateral damage hazard when used in an urban area, and it essentially prevents the use of tank/ infantry tactics, since it would end up shotgunning your own supporting infantry. Now, I have BEEN in urban armored combat (and trained for armored combat in woods and other environs), and I will tell you this: given the choice between proper infantry support and an iffy maybe-it-works-maybe-it-don't missile defense system, I would MUCH rather have a screen of infantrymen shooting the sneaky basterd RPG gunners in the face before they can shoot at me.

also works like a charm on tailgaters!

First thought: "100mph straight across the runway? Hell, you could approach the runway from the side and make a 30mph touchdown!". ...halfway through video: "you don't want to land this way; let's try plan B". Me: *highfives* :thumbup: