Yellonet

The first laser guided rocket, eh? What about the S-25L?

Is there really that much difference to warrant a purchase (or manufacturing by TM) if you already have the Warthog?

Do you keep the laser active during the entire flight of the missile?

Ah, they just keep getting better and better looking...

You know as well as everyone that there are things going on behind closed curtains, and in that competition, SAAB is having a tough time. If it was a "fair" market I believe that more countries would have chosen the JAS-39.

Well, cost of ownership is a big consideration when buying something, that's what :) Stealth is not needed for every type of combat scenario, if you don't need it, why pay for it? For some nations it may make more sense to have a non stealth aircraft in larger numbers than fewer of a stealthy one. I don't think the Gripen requires any AWACS, the Gripen has been in service for quite some time now, and Sweden did not have any AWACS until a few years ago. If it was really required it would have been available from the beginning. Also, the Gripen has a very refined datalink system, one aircraft can get radar data from another, and from what I understand can guide its missiles from several other sources besides its own radar. Well, sometimes going on the offensive just isn't an option, when you're up against a much larger military force invading your country for instance, which is the kind of conflict that the Gripen was designed for. To say it in a politically correct way; an aircraft designed for the USA will be designed for very different types of missions :D

Of course it's not cheap, but the marketing of the Gripen has always included that it's relatively affordable, and if the pricing in that document is somewhat accurate it's a huge difference between Gripen and the F-35 (although it's a bit strange that those two jets are compared). I'm not sure what you mean. The Gripen is made to be as easily maintained and serviced as possible to be able to land, refuel and rearm and then take off from bases along regular roads. Well, obviously the Gripen and the F-35 are made for quite different types of warfare, the Gripen was designed during the cold war with the primary goal of having the ability to defend Sweden against the Russians, i.e. a small country getting attacked by a large country. If those scenarios you speak of are what the F-35 was designed for it sounds more like an aircraft created for an offensive role, flying into enemy territory and fighting, perhaps more of how the US have fought since WW2. I guess that the F-35 was primarily developed for the US market and as such it's not strange that the design reflects what the US would need in an aircraft based on how they have conducted their air warfare. So with such different origins and goals for the aircraft it is understandable that the result are two quite different jets. Maybe, but it's certainly not a disadvantage. Well, they're just created for different missions. I would find it a bit strange if a nation would be choosing between these two to fill the same role.

The Gripen's biggest advantage is that it is much more affordable, you can almost buy five Gripen for the same cost as three F-35, and that's just the initial cost, the Gripen is also much more affordable to operate and maintain. The total cost of ownership for the F-35 seems to be (very, very,) much higher. The Gripen has nearly the same weapons capability, better, performance, range and ceiling and it has a 2-seat version which is great for training. I'm not sure that many nations would really have a need for the few benefits that the F-35 gives them, the stealth is only usable with a greatly diminished weapons load, and the performance of the aircraft seems to leave a lot to be desired.

This is exactly why I purposely left out the title of the video in the thread title and in my first post. Furthermore, I was under the impression that the title of the show was not so much as to claim that the Su-27 is the best fighter as it was to say that the Su-27 was developed with the goal of becoming the best fighter.

Sadly, the only real solution to the problem is to get a new computer, a Pentium 4 has been old for a long time...

What are you talking about? I just posted a link to a video about the Su-27, there's no "bait". If you don't have anything meaningful to say, don't post!

Su-27 from the Russian perspective. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5VXttYF1A

And when all is said and done, it's not very likely that F-15's, F-16's and F(/A)-18's will be fighting each other anyway. A more interesting discussion would be MiG-21 vs F/A-18C which seems to be the first "real" fighter vs. fighter battle we can have in DCS. Of course the F/A-18C has many advantages, but I think that the old MiG could be pretty capable in the right hands. I'm thinking a pair of MiG's could possibly take down a pair of F/A-18's with the right tactics. One MiG plays bait and lures the F/A-18's in, the second "hides" with the radar off outside the radar cones of the F/A-18's, with good communications to keep up the SA the hiding MiG could get close and surprise the Hornets. Maybe :D

I think it's very important to get a new map along with the new fast movers, the old map is starting to feel a bit cramped. DCS needs a new believable campaign that fit the new aircraft. Once (if ever) DCS gets a good dynamic mission generator it will probably become THE fighter jet sim for pretty much everyone into this hobby.

I would just like to start a thread for discussing what to do with the new aircraft once we have them. I for one would really like a Korean campaign, the scenario isn't that difficult to imagine :D It would be very good for carrier ops, and it would still be a viable scenario for F-15's and A-10's. Possibly even for the MiG-21's :) What do you think?

I was always under the (perhaps false) impression that the DCS series would be completely separate from older and or less complex aircraft models and that DCS: BS and DCS: A-10C was just the first two in a long series of modules with the same level of complexity and realism. There is something to be said for a sim where everything conforms to the same standard. As it stands now will we ever be able to tell whether two aircraft are made to the same standards? I can't see how. Can we even trust ED to create their modules to the same standard or will the next module be a fighter with arcade flightmodel and avionics to attract casual gamers? For me the move to start incorporating "lesser" aircraft into the series was quite a surprise and sadly something I see as a devaluation of the DCS product and name. :noexpression:

I really wonder at what level a Typhoon can be modelled...

Balls of Steel... always makes me think of this:

You pull back on the stick a bit while you roll.

One would think that 89 kg of explosives in a thick metal case would do some damage...

I believe that Y and Z are swapped on German keyboards :smartass:

I guess it's one way of separating the wheat from the chaff :D

Hmm... so the inverted trim functionality is how it should be. Makes you wonder why there's no function that inverts the movement of the trim tabs when entering MRFCS. Seems a bit dangerous as it is...

In MRFCS I too get nose up on nose down trim. I don't know if this is how it should be in reality, but it seems wrong. What happens is as the tabs move up, the elevator pushes down which in turn pushes the nose down.

In normal operation the elevator tabs only seem to move in relation to the elevators. The tabs are level to the aircraft body in most trim settings.