OutOnTheOP

You're right; in Afghanistan, it is more rural, and therefore harder for the enemy to hide amongst civilian population in such a way as to preclude the application of indirect fire assets such as mortar and artillery fires; it is also harder for them to close to extremely short distances of the sort where weapons like SDB could not be employed. There is literally no more demanding scenario for precision of close fires than in an urban fight. I'm still not seeing any CAS task in Afghanistan that could not be performed by a light turboprop airframe like the Super Tucano with, say, a 7x70mm rocket pod, 4x SDB and a reasonably accurate 30mm low-velocity cannon or 40mm AGL pod... or by an F-35 (though the F-35 would be totally overkill, as is the A-10, to be honest).

Is there also never a mortar or javelin nearby, nor a tube or rocket artillery battery capable of ranging? Because if you were in the infantry and never planned ahead to bring any form of supporting weapons (like, say, your 60mm mortars), you were incompetent and failed to plan (or planned to fail). No, I was a 13A (field artillery officer), because, surprise surprise, that's what fire support officers are. I served with the FIST team of a Stryker cavalry troop and later with a parachute infantry regiment (that's infantry, by the way). I've seen too many idiots that thought that they'd take on the world with their M4, and left their mortars (and other support weapons) behind because they thought they "wouldn't need them". Those guys are the ones that end up in a bad way, screaming for CAS support, because they made a piss-poor decision not to bring any of the weapons that have been proven time and again to be the ones that actually do most of the killing on the modern battlefield. I had a troop commander that genuinely entertained the notion of pulling our 120s out of our M1129s because he "wanted more troop carriers". I was able to convince him it was a bad idea, because we already had 14 "troop carriers" in the troop, and only enough troops to fill 5 of the 12 seats on each anyway (and because if, in the deployment, we decided we needed the mortars, it would have been too late, as re-installing the turrets is a depot-level job). Luckily, logic prevailed, because as it happened (and I mentioned earlier), our mortars did the lion's share of the killing. Funny how proper planning for supporting arms obviated our need for "life-saving CAS", even during the 2007 Battle of Baqubah (one of the largest single engagements of post-2003 Iraq) Oh, and by the way, we had tanks and Bradleys on call within 20 minutes at pretty much all times, even though we were not ourselves a tank unit. However, we had CAS support for my troop *once*, and it was an F-16. (plenty of Apaches out of FOB Warhorse, though). The only A-10s in country would have taken hours to get there (I'm pretty sure they were frag'd to Anbar at the time). Tanks were so available that we literally called up a two-tank section just to blast a *footbridge* between the Shia and Sunni neighborhoods that was being used to launch retribution attacks between the two. Bradleys are AWESOME for clearing hostile buildings, by the way. Better than even Apaches; they can use a short burst to open a hole into each room (or just fire through windows) and kill everything inside without needing to flatten the whole building with less accurate fire. Funny, I never noticed that aircraft were "always available", I usually noticed (and yes, I did read the ATO) that there were like 4-8 tasked to the entire country of Iraq on any given day, and that *if* you could get one, it would take an hour to get the aircraft on station and get clearance of fires. Not impressed with XCAS or push CAS one bit. I *did* notice that Apache was available reasonably often, tanks and Brads were usually available, mortars were *always* available (if you weren't too stupid to leave them home), and the GMLRS is a thing of glory. On the one occasion we did get CAS it worked great, but we could have accomplished the same with a GMLRS. Sorry if that hurts any CAS-afficianado's tiny little TF34-driven hearts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

It's absolutely out of place; if you go from a less dense metal (steel) to a more dense (lead), but maintain the same weight, volume will decrease. Since diameter must remain the same, this means that length will decrease. Lower length= lower BC, all else remaining equal. That's why competition bullet makers put lightweight polymer inserts or air gaps (Open-tip-match design) in the bullet: it makes it longer and therefore more aerodynamic, without making it heavier (and therefore reducing MV) I'm not contending that you don't have numbers from Tula that claim a higher BC. I'm contending that they are not honest with their numbers (or at the least, got their numbers from test barrels that are not representative of service rifles). They're a business. They want to make their product look good. Ammunition manufacturers have a long history of inflating their BCs. Most are kept honest by shooters that do just what I did: test shoot it and reverse-calculate BC from where it DID hit, compared to where the claimed BC said it SHOULD have hit. This means that bullets commonly used in competition calibers generally have pretty accurate BC, because the company would pick up a bad rap otherwise (though even Nosler and Sierra *still* fudge their numbers, with my experience showing they often claim 0.005 to 0.01-ish above reality; there is a 1.5 MOA variance between what I ACTUALLY have to hold at 1000 yards vice what Nosler's data CLAIMS I should at my measured MV). However, not many people shoot lightweight 123-grain .310 caliber bullets for long-range (because it's a terrible design for that purpose!), so there aren't as many people interested in making sure the claimed BC for that bullet is accurate, so Tula can get away with fudging it: not many people care. I only did the test shoot and calculations previously because I've had this exact same debate years ago with an S3 major who thought that 5.56x45 was too weak and that we should go back to 7.62x51 or 7.62x39 for standard rifle use. That was my point: Soldiers see "bigger bullet" and automatically think "more lethal", and it's not true. The wounding mechanism of the complex-construction 5.56x45mm M855 is more damaging than that of the 7.62x39mm bimetallic M43 series within normal combat distances, and while the M43 is better at penetrating thick, "soft" barrier material like wood and masonry (because the mild steel core doesn't deform or break up), the M855 is significantly better at peforating harder, thinner barrier materials (like helmets, body armor, or armor steel) because it has a lot of velocity and a small frontal area. Edit: the .351 BC for the 5.45, I can believe. It is a pretty aerodynamically efficient bullet, long and thin, with a significant air gap in the nose. And of note, the Mujahideen called it the "adder" or "viper" bullet (translated, of course) when the Soviets used it against them, because of the grievous wounds it inflicted. Curious that they made special note of how lethal it was, when 7.62x39 and .303 (7.7x56R) were their baseline they were accustomed to. Point is, small-and-fast is a lot more effective than it looks like it should be. Edit 2: 2944 FPS for the M855A1, and only 2650 for the Mk262? That data is obviously fired from a 14.5" M4 barrel... which doesn't mean it's not valid, but it's also not representative of the actual performance of the rounds; they have a good 200 FPS more when fired from a 20" barrel. Smartest thing the Marines have done lately is keeping the full-length barrel. I've always thought short barrels are a terrible combination with cartridges designed around velocity. (note I've never argued that the M4 is the optimal design, only that the *cartridge* delivers a lot of energy. Look at an AKSU74 and you'll have the same problems there too). I went out of my way to carry an M16A2 instead of an M4 for just that reason. Everyone thought I was crazy to take it over the "tacti-cool" M4s. Anyhow, the comparison chart is valid for an M4 versus an AKM, but it is NOT representative of an M16A2/A4 versus an AKM. Add a couple hundred FPS to the 5.56mm bullets and you'll see their energy delivery is practically identical at typical combat ranges, and higher at "long" ranges. Even at only 3100 FPS (a low-ball for M16), the M855A1 at 0.152 G7 is holding 856.6 ft-lb at 200 m vice the 822 for 7.62x39 on your chart, or 1331 (M855A1) vice 1521 at muzzle, making the change-over point around 150-ish meters. If we go with milspec 3200+ FPS on the M855A1, it's got even more energy in comparison (at 3200 MV, it's holding 919 ft-lb at 200m) Also... 2557 FPS for M80 ball? Absolutely not; it's milspec to 2750 measured a whopping 78 feet from the muzzle; that puts it at closer to 2850 FPS at the muzzle (and again, I have chrony'd it at 2800+). 2557 is even slower than the actual measured MV for the M118 LR super-heavy sniper round! How do we break out a thread, anyhow? Does the moderator need to do it?

Tula is either inflating their claimed BC, or has produced an upgraded ammunition from the military issue. I lean toward "they're lying". Lab- measured G1 BC for M43 and M67 is almost impossible to find, because the Russian military uses a different measuring system, not G1/ G7 BC (unless you want to rely on wikipedia?) Every commercially available 123gn .310 bullet out there is in the range from 0.260 to 0.280. This includes all-copper bullets and ones with polymer nose inserts (both of which greatly improve BC over a conventional solid core jacketed design). I find it hard to believe that the M43 or M67 breaks 0.28 BC. Having shot plenty of surplus M43, I can say that the math doesn't add up for a BC of .304; the observed drop from actual firing is greater than would result from .304. That means either a) the MV is lower I was calculating for, or b) the BC is lower than 0.304... but I've verified the MV on a chrony, so it must be the BC. Observed results line up closer to 0.28 G1 BC, possibly a little under. Sellier & Bellot, a Czech manufacturer that produced ammunition under the Warsaw Pact, distributes 123gn FMJ with an advertised 0.276 G1 BC, in line with observed results from my testing, and I have no reason to believe they went through the effort to re-tool their production line away from the military issue design. Anyhow, I was comparing M43 non-AP (BC 0.28 and MV 2337 as verified on chronograph and through observed ballistic drop) with M855 (BC 0.304 and MV 3215, also verified on chronograph and verified through observed ballistic drop); IE the two issued rounds, as fired through issue-length barrels (20" M16 vs 16.3" AKM; the Tula claimed MV may be for a longer barrel?) This means at the muzzle, you're looking at 1503 ft-lb energy on the 7.62x39 vs 1431 ft-lb on the 5.56x45. However, at 300 meters, it's a mere 643 ft-lb on the 7.62, and 734 on the 5.56 for a 20% energy advantage to the 5.56mm Yes, the 7.62x39 starts with a little more energy... but it's kind of irrelevant, as it is a steel-core bullet that will never deform in tissue, so it will never dump that energy into the target the way a fragmenting 5.56x45 M855 will (with reliable fragmentation at impact velocities above 2600 FPS, IE out to around 200 meters; feel free to check with Dr Martin Fackler's work on the subject). To get any sort of deformation, you must go with a lead-core military issue 7.62x39, which means M67, which is shorter than the M43, and has no boat-tail, so it's BC plummets to something around 0.245. If we want to start talking aftermarket, improved rounds (or AP rounds), I would not be surprised if Tula managed to make a .310 caliber bullet with a .304 BC by putting on a very aggressive boattail (and perhaps polymer insert or airspace to lengthen it), but at the same time, the Mk262 (aka SMK 77gn HPBT) for the 5.56x45 has been introduced into limited military service and launches a 77gn bullet to ~2950 FPS with a BC of .372 (for 1496 ft-lb at muzzle and 855 at 300 meters). Likewise, the new M855A1 is the same weight as M855, but significantly longer, and with a much more pronounced boat-tail, which will lead to BC improvement... how much, hard to say. I would guess in the 0.350-ish range. So even if we look at improved rounds for each, the 5.56 is still pushing higher velocity and better BC. It's just the limitations of the x39. When you make a cartridge with a proportionally small case capacity and comparatively large bullet, it will not have tremendous performance, and when you use a short, light bullet (for caliber), BC will suffer. Anyhow, there's a reason the Russians went away from the 7.62 and moved to 5.45x39. I'd be happy to discuss more in PM, but I suspect some folk are getting impatient with our thread de-rail.

...and that's why we're swagging it on fuzzy maths =P Alright, so we're looking at 6-8 hours total time aloft on full internal, maybe reduced to 4-6 once ordnance is added; possibly more loiter at lower speeds (though I'm not sure you'd want to get much below 270 indicated) Doesn't seem to me like there's any lack of loiter.

90 min at 200 nmi, with loiter conducted at what speed, though? If they're claiming 90 minutes at, say, 500 knots, I'd bet it'll do 150 minutes at 300 knots loiter. Sure, distance-traveled fuel efficiency would drop if it was below optimum cruise, but time-aloft fuel efficiency would almost certainly increase.

What exactly *is* the loiter time for the F-35, anyway? I mean, we know roughly it's maximum cruising radius, so we can work out it's endurance at cruise speed... but best-distance cruise speed is not the same as best-endurance cruise speed. I'm sure the F-35 will happily cruise at 250 knots at ridiculously low power settings, if you want. And since it can do so with clean aerodynamics even with an 8x SDB CAS loadout, and since it does so at much higher altitude than the A-10, I would not be surprised if the F-35 maximum loiter isn't too terribly far off that of the A-10.

That's the thing, though: comparing CAS to CCA to mortars to artillery is EXACTLY the comparison we should make, because the goal is not to determine "what system is best at loitering the longest and making low gun runs the best", it is "what system is best at most rapidly and effectively providing the required battlefield effects", and quite often, not only is the answer to that question not the A-10, its NOT EVEN CAS AT ALL. CAS is nice in a non-contiguous (IE, COIN) battlefield, because, as you point out, the forces may not always be in range of a surface-fired system. However, that's unlikely to be the case in a high-intensity conflict, where there will be far more well-defined front lines and much more concentration of assets (and the artillery crews will actually be manning their guns instead of playing infantry redux thanks to ROE that prevent using their guns in the first place). CAS will always be required in support of special operations, who operate way beyond the range of surface fires. It'll always be required for COIN because of the vast distances the COIN force must control (but again, you probably don't need anything quite as powerful and sophisticated as the modern A-10C for the job). It'll always be required for airborne operations, because parachute forces cannot generally bring enough heavy weapons and artillery of their own. It's kind-of necessary for air assault, but they can usually bring a lot of heavy weapons, and have gunship helicopters anyway. However, for the majority of the units in the US military, CAS is a nice-to-have, not a need-to-have. For most up-close-and-personal fights, the infantry (and supporting armor and artillery) actually have better weapons for dealing with the enemy- to include armor- within a couple kilometers of themselves than CAS. They don't need CAS to kill the stuff they can kill themselves with sabot, Javelin, CDTE airburst grenades, and mortar/ artillery fires. In that scenario, all CAS is doing is providing another source of fires, which are less timely and lower volume than the artillery is already providing, and which isn't accomplishing anything the artillery isn't already... except that the artillery often has to cease fire to allow the CAS into the area. No, it's stupid to use airpower to attack the targets that surface fires are already successfully prosecuting. Instead, air should be used to engage the targets that surface fires CAN'T successfully engage. By conducting BAI and interdiction missions, killing armor reserves behind the lines, disrupting artillery behind the lines, and crushing the supply lines behind the lines, air power provides a much greater force multiplying effect than it would by simply directly attacking forces already in contact. And for that mission, an F-16 or F-35 is as, if not more, well suited than an A-10.

Thing is... it's not. The 7.62x39 is a terribly anemic round, and at 300 meters has under 2/3 the energy on it that a 62-grain M855 5.56x45mm does. 7.62x39 comes out about 700-800 feet per second slower, and the round is very unaerodynamic, so what little energy it does have, it quickly dumps through air resistance. It has something like 8% more energy at the muzzle, but somewhat less by the time it reaches 100 meters. The one thing 7.62x39 does well is penetrate low-density, thick intermediate barriers like wood or cinderblock- but that's not a function of the cartridge itself, it's because the Russians were cheap and used mild steel instead of lead in the bullet core. It *also* means the bullet doesn't deform in any way in tissues, so it actually causes a pretty mild wound, comparatively speaking. You can accomplish the same with 5.56x45mm by using the M995 armor-piercing round: it will zip right through intermediate cover as well as the 7.62x39 does, and it'll make little icepick wounds just like the 7.62x39, too. There ARE better rounds out there, but 7.62x39 isn't it (for example, if you open the case neck of the 5.56x45mm up to 6mm, and put in a decent 87-grain 6mm bullet, it will fly a trajectory similar to 7.62x51mm NATO, and will have 30% more energy at the muzzle than 5.56mm M855, and something like twice the energy at 500 meters because the bullets are much more aerodynamically efficient. It's the caliber I'm using for a project gun I'm working on at the moment). Aaaaand, sorry for the de-rail.

Not sure you'd get any different from many riflemen, though; they love the A-10 because they have been told, again and again, how amazing it is. It is literally a meme. That doesn't mean the A-10 *is* better, but plenty of riflement think it is. Even in their own field of expertise, there are plenty of riflemen (who really ought to know better), who genuinely think the AK47 is a superior weapon to the M4s / M16s they are carrying, despite the fact that every quantifiable metric says otherwise (higher muzzle velocity: M16. Better body armor penetration: M16. More joules of energy delivered on any target beyond 50 meters: M16. Better accuracy: M16. Lower recoil impulse favoring rapid follow-up shots and automatic fire: M16. Twice the ammo carried per weight: M16. Way, WAY better ergonomics- IE, you can activate or deactivate the safety without taking a hand fully off the rifle, you can drop a magazine with one finger rather than a two-hand operation, permitting faster mag swaps, etc etc). Some urban myths are just self-perpetuating.

Ooh, look, internet badass is bandying around testosterone-inflated threats! ... because, y'know, A-10 pilots totally train in hand-to-hand, combatives, bayonet, and other unarmed combat drill just like the infantry. I would actually laugh to see that hypothetical self-assured A-10 jockey START a fight with a grunt, just to get fed his own fist.... and then get UCMJ'd when he comes to, for assaulting the grunt.

Anyone ever tell you that you argue like a real prick? You (nor Sierra) have not actually offered up any real counter-arguments, you have simply relied on "appeal to authority" logical fallacies and insisted you "know better" than everyone else, and when they make a logical argument, you just dismiss it with "yeah, well, you just don't know anything". So what if your aircraft fired 500 rounds? Have you thought that perhaps the *reason* they fired 500 rounds was because they did not have a selectable rate of fire, and that just *maybe*, pasting the area with a 500 round burst was perhaps a bit overkill? Against infantry targets (including in buildings), the density of fire the GAU-8 puts out is far more than required. Against the same target sets, AH-64 with M230 regularly, successfully prosecute those *EXACT* same targets (squad-size groups of insurgents within 50 meters of friendlies) with 10-15 rounds of 30mm, because they have a lower rate of fire and are not wasting ammunition plastering the area with a zillion rounds. Again, aircraft having in the past spent 500 rounds is not the same thing as proving that 500 rounds is, in fact, required. If a cannon with an 800-1200 rpm rate of fire were used, I would bet good money that you would have the same effect on target using a quarter the ammunition. Since you seem so hung up on your supposed intellectual superiority based on, what, that you count how many rounds the pilots expended on the mission for which you were not present, perhaps I should point out that for YEARS, I was a fire support officer. You know, the ACTUAL guys on the ground. The ones that have to actually figure out how to "make it to breakfast". The ones that actually have to determine the best weapons for the task. I have actually BEEN in firefights on multiple occasions, and have had to be the one officer on the ground deciding the systems to use, and directing them onto the target. Since you seem to think that "personal experience" is all that counts, I will tell you this: in my opinion, the AH64 is the superior system for super-close CAS, compared to the A-10. But more than that, when I needed close-in support to suppress the enemy, the very BEST option was my 120mm mortar section. Out of the dozens of times I had to put ordnance on targets, the BEST, and FASTEST effects observed on target were consistently delivered by my organic mortars. And yes, I could and did bring them in to within 70 meters of friendlies. Not once did I require a GAU-8 run; against targets in close (35-50 meters) I successfully employed: 30mm from Apache, which killed the target on the first pass. Hellfire from Apache, which killed the target on the first pass Excalibur guided cannon projectile, which killed the target with a single round, delivered within 5-7 minutes, about the same time it would take to talk an A/C onto target (assuming that the clearance of fire for the CAS run didn't take an hour like it usually does) JDAM from F-16, which killed the target on the first pass (ok, this one wasn't actually close to friendlies, but WAS close other buildings and the effects were limited to just the target building; I would have been perfectly comfortable using it on a target across the street from friendlies) Please, tell me again how I "know nothing" and come from a position of ignorance, where I cannot form an informed opinion about whether the very niche capabilities of the A-10 are required to support my operations or not.

Some people seem *really* hung up on the "but, what if they need to engage a target REALLY close to friendlies?" scenario. OK, fair enough, the 30mm is a good weapon to conduct those engagements. However, the 25mm has been shown to be just as accurate, from a longer distance. "But, it only carries 180 rounds!" seems to be the immediate counter. Fine, true... but exactly HOW many times in a single sortie do you expect to engage targets SO close to friendlies that you need to resort to strafing? Needing to engage targets too close for APKWS or SDB would be unusual: needing to do so more than 4-5 times on one mission would be... let's just call it highly atypical. F-35 can conduct at least a couple passes in the *relatively rare* cases gun is truly needed, and they'll always fly in at least a wing pair, so that makes 4-5 passes between them. I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which more than that would be needed. Maybe a Chinese People's Volunteers 1950-type human wave scenario, but in that case, I doubt the gun runs would matter much, and you'd probably make more impact on the outcome of the battle by dropping CBU87s onto the mass of troops further to the rear of the "wave" anyhow! A good CAS aircraft needs to be able to get to the target area quickly when needed (loiter time is *a* method, but not the only method), rapidly and accurately ID the intended target (which can be done with good sensors; the A-10 HAD to be low and slow to get it done, because when it was designed, visual was the ONLY way to accomplish this. That's not the case anymore), and put effective ordnance onto the target with sufficient accuracy to avoid fratricide (which can be accomplished with a relatively unsophisticated gun, or with PGMs). None of these things REQUIRE low/slow operation, armor, or a ton of cannon ammunition. As an end-user of these systems (the guy on the ground), I don't actually CARE what system it is that delivers the ordnance. What matters is that a) the fires are delivered quickly, and b) they hit what you want to hit and nothing else. A 30mm gun run from an A-10 will accomplish the desired effect. So will an SDB from an F-35. So will an Excalibur or other guided cannon or mortar round. Each one will successfully and selectively engage a target within 70 meters of friendlies. Pretty sure an M777 howitzer has even the A-10 beat on both loiter time and cost effectiveness; that $70,000 guided projectile is *still* a lot cheaper than all the fuel, maintenance, and manpower (paychecks) required to just get an A-10 up in the air burning holes in the sky for a few hours (even if it expends NO ordnance). Either way, all of these systems will all accomplish the desired effect. Full stop. Accomplishing the desired effect on the battlefield is the only thing that matters. Not how "sexy" the method of delivery is. Personally, I think the GAU-8 is a waste. All told, the weight investment in gun, feed system, and propellant/cases would be better invested into guided gravity weapons; you'd get more effect per pound of munition if you let gravity do the work of getting it to the target instead of spending thousands of pounds on a gun that requires you to enter the engagement envelope of everything larger than .50 cal, and which isn't capable of killing tanks anyway. Yes, we should keep a gun for when we need it, but hauling around multiple thousands of pounds of it is stupid. Carry something lighter, and carry as much ammo as you're generally going to need.... which I would not be surprised to find was statistically somewhere south of 200 rounds. Personally, I think we should keep a *few* A-10s for use in COIN, with perhaps 40-50 airframes. However, if it's cheaper to buy new Super Tucano (or similar) than to refurbish and continue operating A-10, I'd be perfectly happy with employing dedicated COIN aircraft. A-10 very rarely carries anything more than 4 stations of ordnance these days anyway, so the inability for a COIN A/C to carry more than 2-3,000 pounds of ordnance is a bit academic: you don't need more for COIN, and A-10 can't survive high-intensity anyway. Maybe pod M230 (Apache cannon) for the COIN A/C. Frankly, it's a better choice than GAU-8: way (WAY!) lighter, as or more accurate, and has equally effective HE/frag effect. All you're really losing is muzzle velocity and rate of fire, but those aren't terribly important against soft targets, only against armor... against which GAU-8 is inadequate anyway. M230 will easily kill BMP and similar (just like GAU-8 ), and neither will kill tanks.

That is literally the exact opposite of what pilots say about the Mustang. It is frequently called "pleasant" or a "Cadillac" because it had excellent handling characteristics. If you want to talk about aircraft trying to kill their own pilots, you're talking about the 109, and more specifically about it's horrid torque and narrow landing gear causing miserable takeoff and landing characteristics. And the 109 actually *did* kill many of its pilots. You mean real-world P-51 pilots have vetted the bottom end of the envelope. The real-world pilots are flying 40+ year old aircraft, and do not push it (particularly the engine) to its limits. They can tell you how it handles at 46" max continuous MP, but not what it can do at 72" WEP. Their aircraft are also not in original configuration. Sure, a 67" 51D is overmatched by a 1.8 ATA 109K, but by the same token, you could force match-ups between a Sopwith Camel and a 109K and then claim that it's "realistic" that the real 109K outperforms it. The fact is that 8th AF was using higher grade fuel by the time the 109K was out, and historically had boosted their engine ratings. The DCS Mustang does not get that boost. Kurfurst's inane rambling aside, the Mustang we get in DCS is not AERODYNAMICALLY representative of a late-war 51D, because it it missing one of the most important facets: engine rating.

I still don't get why anyone would see that as "shameful". If you're expected to fly a thirty-minute sortie, you take a thirty-minute fuel loadout. (well, 40 minute with a reserve, but 40% is WAY over enough for a 30-minute sortie). No one thinks it's "shameful" to not lug a full load of bombs around for a short-range intercept mission, so why should it be considered "cheating" to choose not to handicap yourself with three hours of fuel just because your aircraft has better basic fuel capacity than the opponent?

It is also grotesquely over-simulated. Even with the light-barrel guns, the only way you'd get dispersion THAT wide is if you heated the guns until the barrels' steel softened; practically melting the gun.

Not too fussed about the 2x sidewinders... but the failure to include Maverick will make it a no-buy for me. There are simply too many mission requirements that the F-5E would be incapable of in multiplayer without it. It would have no ability to degrade SHORAD, no ability to attack anything armoured, and no stand-off attack. F-5E without Maverick would be pretty useless in online play without vast, vast changes to the mission sets. Given that the F-5E is the exception- the 70s bird among moderns, without a full set of contemporaries with which to fly, and contemporary ADA systems against which to fight- it will almost certainly not have missions made to suit it online; it will instead be the severely crippled underdog trying to fit into a much higher threat environment than it can handle. Not sure I'm interested in that.

And where, exactly, do you get the impression that the F-22 does not? I'm reasonably certain well more than 13 F-14s were "waxed" by T-38s in any given year of the Fighter Weapons School.

Or maybe they've conducted 500 fights against Raptors, but only 2 against Eagles. Or they fight the Eagles in "fair" fights starting at BVR, but only fight the Raptors in contrived start-in-WVR fights. Or even start the fight behind the Raptor. Training exercises are rarely constructed to see who's best; they're designed to force the training audience to adapt to and overcome difficult situations. They're often weighted heavily against the training audience. In short, context matters.

True, but there are points in those clouds where angle - off- tall of the missile is easily 150 degrees. 60 for the seeker leaves 90... I'm finding it hard to believe it's maintaining a 90 degree AOA, even with TVC

That depends on what you mean. The AIM-9X can be fired at a target it can't "see" when it comes off the launcher. Like I said, it can see about a 120 degree arc. However, if the launching aircraft acquires a target, say, 180 degrees off boresight (straight behind), the seeker head can't see it. The aircraft will "tell" the AIM-9X that there's a target back there 180 degrees back, the AIM-9X comes off the rail, uses an onboard INS system to figure out where it is pointing and where it needs to point to see the target, turns itself to face, and then "looks for" the target, because it was told where to look by the launching aircraft. However, I am not sure if there is a datalink between launching aircraft and missile *after* the AIM-9X leaves the rail. So, if the AIM-9X doesn't "find" the target where it "expected" it to be, you might be right, it may not continue to try to acquire it. However, R73 has none of that functionality. It doesn't have the capability to "point" itself at a target outside it's seeker gimbal limits and look for it after launch. It has to maintain a lock from launch to impact. Once it looses lock, it will not continue to turn to "find" the target. It will just go dumb. It *may* lock onto something else that wanders into it's field of view, but it won't keep going around a 180 degree turn, because it's not "smart" enough to predict where the target has gone once the target is no longer visible to the seeker. Short version is that the AIM-9X (and I think ASRAAM) "predicts" where the target will go, but R73 does not.

No. If I recall correctly, the R73 only has a 60 degree seeker gimbal (might be as high at 75 degrees, but I know it's not over 90). The target is clearly outside that 60 degree arc for almost the entire path from launch to impact; a real missile would have lost track almost immediately and gone "stupid". The AIM-9X would be able to pull off this shot, because it a) has a larger seeker field of view/gimbal (I think 110 or 120 degrees?), and b) it has lock-on-after launch/ INS navigation to point it at a cued target that is outside it's field of view. I believe ASRAAM also has this capability. R73 certainly does not.

Possibly related issue: I discovered that in an online server (I do not recall which), a "cold start" Bf109K4 spawned in with the landing gear button pressed in to "retract". Not a problem, unless you start the engine with the button still pushed in, but if you do, it'll pull in the gear and drop the aircraft on it's belly. Similarly, the cold-start P-51D starts with battery and inverter turned on via the right side electrical panel, where it really should not. This one doesn't cause problems, but *does* further prove that the starting switch settings area not the same in 2.0 as in 1.5 or 1.2

Please load the mission editor, put in a FW190, and note how many pounds of fuel the FW190 has at 100%. Then add a P-51D and move the slider until it is at the same fuel weight. Note what percentage the P-51D is at to have the same fuel weight. Then please try to tell us that carrying the same fuel weight is unfair.