schmiefel

Quite fascinating how this has finally moved from "new pay model" with a subscription in mind to a "military flight simulation" add on / mod for a not even released new civilian (!) flight simulator ...

Please @Vertigo72 do us a favor an ask MS for a beta access for your favorite flight simulation. They have a development forum, too, that you can spam then with new crude business development ideas, as this over here gets a big waste of time and effort...

1) the showcase videos you mentioned were showing the LM sim! And this one adresses professional civil and military flight training 2) you like to completely ignore the other notes I made, that no serious publisher would rather like to showcase military sim pilots hunting down civil airliners in their respective civil sims and vice versa military sims rather don't have much civil elements as combatants but as fractions to take care of - so its very unlikely to get any tools / support from professional studios for this 3) plus: no serious attempts to improve this were done in the last 20 years - why should ED ever think about it? Just because it suits your mission that the DCS horse is at least engine-wise dead, can't / won't be improved by its publisher etc ... the horse you are riding with all those arguments is getting more and more ridiculous Edit: maybe you should try harder to avoid this "vertigo" argumentation and get back to oriented flying :joystick::pilotfly:

As this thread is for patch discussion I just want to give some food for thoughts that there is even in patching things a big difference between a) productive software = that is software that lets you run your business (!) and mostly earn money with it or deliver training aids that have a public interest (like professional military and flight simulators that cost hundreds of millions dollar, have professional payed support, quality assurance etc.) b) entertainment software = that earns (at least) money for the developer / publisher and returns fun and entertainmant to the customers There is maybe c) entertainment software that is used for professional (= making money with it) entertainment, but that needs most of the time different and more expensive licences etc. and doesn't happen with DCS to my knowledge so far. Therefore delivering patches for DCS is mostly to keep the publisher in business by entertaining its customers with better functionality and quality and not to professionalize its product itself for a productive professional market.

XXX, YYY, ZZ - cited brand names deleted with reasons - and it really doesn't matter which civil flight sim brand it could be as I describe in the following the mentioned Lockheed Martin flight simulator (YYY) is NOT for public simmer hobby usage - period there is still no substantial AI etc. available that reacts to an attack or performs attacks on its own there is no mission / sandbox creating tool available that has to be integrated within the "civil" simulation what about MP?! I could go further on with this list. But be sure as long as those civil flight sims are in the business, if it would have been suitable to add and integrate military flight simulation on a substantial basis it would have already been done and widely used. Yes, there are certain military aircraft in there. They are to some extend very well simulated. There is to my knowledge one (!) commercial supported add-on for tactics and weapons but most Air-Air and a little Air-Surface but not vice versa. I stand with it: mixing up those two genre is much too complex and finally would lead to things no one wants to really show off, like hunting down airliners in a MP environment. That maybe generate some "fun" for kids and narrow-minded folks but one would rather get a below 18 rating for such a "simulation". So this next whataboutism leads to nothing that helps with the actual situation. There are good reasons why DCS is - despite some negative aspects, shown mostly by its age of technology - one of the most versatile military flight simulators still in the market. There are big and famous simulation studios for military flight sims that where already in the market when the producers of the now as DCS known brand showed up too, and most of them are dead since many years, because they couldn't or didn't want to stay in that niche market. Maybe ED doesn't get the turn around this times - that would be a real pity. But I am very confident that they are nowadays stronger in the business than ever and that the team in the background is really working hard getting the things together - just their users / customers have to show some passion and confidence as well...

Now it gets childish: where did I state anything against other flight sims or even said something about hating other sims? I just stated that grahically and technical advanced sims like the new MS flightsim need a top notch pc system ... and the lack of knowledge you show concerning VR in this says everything. I don't know what your "mission" is with all that, but it shows quite a lot of one more armchair warrior that are so typical for internet forums today.

O.k. - just read this "statement" ..now I am pretty sure you don't have any clue what you are talking about at all and how different those systems are, how different the demands are etc... Just as a small example: No civilian flight simulator needs a real collission model for objects - be it static or moving elements. But any military simulation needs this as you want and need to blow up things in there. And that is one of the huge ressource hogs DCS has as you have to calculate each kind of collission within the envorinment and even have to calculate different moving objects in relation to each other within the simulated world. Integrating DCS into something like this would maybe deliver better real weather and a global simulation of the world, but you will end just simulating base patterns and plain navigation flying - all the strategic elements would be reduced to the training mode as you barely would see a rocket impacting and destroying something in a somehow realistic way etc. And even if someone in the cilvil simulation world would like to expand the technology (there are / were certain attempts to do this, which resulted far from the experience you already get with specialized simulations like DCS) it would kill the computing ressources there, too - maybe much more than in an specialized military simulation engine like DCS has. E.g. you just can't place procedural generated objects on the maps to enrich the envorinment, but you have to place real 3D objects that could get destroyed as well... have fun calcluating the a) financial demands doing this for the whole planet b) find enough computing ressources to do this within the already very complex simulation environments civilian flight sims have - where most parts are not very relevant if at all for a military flight simulation. I am done with this debate now... Edit: And I am quite sure you haven't tested the new MS flight sim but just have seen pretty marketing screenshots and video clips else you would have a better idea of what a kind of a highend system this thing needs to let all the fancy new graphics and weather effects shine ... no need to anwser to this as that is all under NDA and I don't want any one to compromise himself.

@Vertigo72: Following your recent posts and arguments it sounds more and more like you think of ED as complete business noobs that don't have a clue how to run successful their job? If that would be the case no finance model at all would secure the future of DCS because its business consists just of hot air. On the other side I believe ED has - unlike yourself - a very good knowledge of their business and know very well how to calculate their demands. Then: paying for new developed graphics engine etc. Paying for such fundamental updates won't be any problem as ED can ask everytime for payed updates of their already released modules to be used with new features like Vulkan etc. to use them within a new core system (name it DCSW 3.0 or something like that). They already do this for the KA-50 or the A-10. Same is for every 3rd party developer that could ask for an update price if his module needs a fundamental rewrite / update to be used within a new core system. No one needs a subscription based model for this. Then its on each customers decission if he'd like to further use its already owned modules within a new system as well or if he'd like to stay with the old one that maybe gets abandoned with no further updates. That route would be much more than any other major publisher in this market does it as they just ask the full price for any new version of their games and stuff or just role out a so called new game that most of the time just features minor system updates - if at all - if you take a look at the most serial franchises like F1 and other ...

Ich hatte dazu Mal hier: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4293653&postcount=3439 Und hier: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4293759&postcount=3441 Meine Settings gepostet... ist vllt. ne Basis auch wenn Dein Sys v.a. seitens Grafikkarte ne deutlich andere Leistungsklasse ist...und seitdem schon wieder einige Releases dazu kamen

Did you ever check how much marketing budget those multimillion AAA development use? That's sometimes all in all rather 30-50% of the whole budget. Plus add Multi-System development for PC and consoles and then check how many million copies get sold and multiply this with the net debit. Just as an example in 2019 EA sold about 7.3 million copies of BF V in its business quarter. I just even can't guestimate how many copies ED sells, but if you only look at the player base comming through Steam its roughly 1.300 people playing DCSw at all ( https://steamdb.info/app/223750/ ) - the MP User statistic could be derived from each ones user account ( https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/server/?login=yes ) and shows less than 2.000 the moment I wrote this - and that's including the only free module users. So add non MP users etc. and let it be in its 10.000 for each module its still far off from what EA gaines from one popular franchise game in its release quarter. tl&dr : it makes no sense debating price tags for DCS. ED has its numbers what makes sense to demand for a module. If that doesn't meet your expectations you could take a look at the competition. The F-16 e.g. is still available for 2(3) other civilian flightsimulators and costs between 25 $ to about 30€. Then check if you can do 20-50% with that what DCS already delivers for 80$. Or you take the road to a long time abandoned F-16 sim that is now community supported for free if you still have or get access to the old original product. Users / customers have their choices...

+1 well said. Plus: it takes many years of full time training to become combat ready on the real thing. I have not enough free time to even try to master the already finished and working parts of this module ...

I don't think that you - and a lot other users - really get it. No offense, where should you know from. But at least reading what is stated with every EA Module would help to avoid those debates a lot. In other so called AAA gaming titles you have to pay for each game that maybe lasts a year up to 50..60$ and sometimes more if you add several DLC and cosmetic items sold seperately or in "ultimate" something packages. As others already mentioned: in DCS every full featured module and most of the FC3 ones as well takes x-times what other gaming titles need just to get all the information, licenses etc. together. Until then no line of code is written and no 3D part done. The DCS system consists of a kind of study level military sandbox simulation, what makes DCS World more like an Unreal Engine for developing the gaming / making the simulation models and scenarios within. With the Unreal Engine, you can load for free too, you just get the necessary framework. The parts that make a AAA game on this mean the real task then. Concentrating on one modul at time would be a waste of ressources, as e.g. graphics designers mostly don't code the system and the crew that manages the core framework normally doesn' t design things or codes specialized aircraft systems. So, as soon as e.g. the 3D artwork of a new module is done the graphics specialists could start working on the next module, the marketing people could use this to showcase the next items, and the research team can have a look for new possible and worthwhile objects... That's rather how every development of new products is done. Now, that you can get access to modules in an early development phase, where even not a release date is given, is just a part of the business model ED uses. And no one is forced to buy them or load into the Beta framework where those modules can be used at first. The price tag ED gives to its modules is just in their responsibility and if there won't be enough users willing to pay this, these prices won't work. But no one that's an Battlefield or Formula1 fan would debate how much the 5th or 7th Iteration of rather the same game costs as long as he gets a new toy of the same kind every year. :doh:

In einem anderen Thread im englischen Teil stand was davon, dass Mods, die z.B. Cockpits aus FC3-Modulen genutzt haben, seit dem letzten Update wohl nicht mehr funktionieren würden, weil die zuständigen DLLs nicht mehr geladen werden können ... vermutlich liegts daran.

You want an anwser fro me to the question of a new subscrition based funding model etc? That's simple: No I don't need a new funding model, because its not my business, I don't have the necessary facts to even consider about, but I can always decide with my own wallet if that what ED offers suits me or not. On your side with all the lack you find that ED doesn't deliver to please you I really wonder why you take that much effort in trying to change something that is far out of your reach and not just turn away and look for a playing ground that better meets your request? Plus: You can't offer any real business case just some "thoughts" on your own what might be right or better to solve all the current and future problems, completely ignoring that the majority of the user base that had a motion to anwser this poll denied the question. I really wonder if you have run at least some kind of real business at all or if your are just another more or less well trained theoretical business "developer". For me its clear: If ED some day decides to switch to a kind of a subscription based model I am out and put some more "game stuff" in the bin where already a lot of still abandoned games reside ... :pilotfly:

Did I miss something and F/A-18 is still out of early access aka alpha/beta development status? All those that reclaim having spent hundreds of dollars in DCS stuff and could not use it to their expected level should maybe rethink their "investments" or learn understanding whats written in EDs shop with every such module before buying it. Or: You can already buy a Superbug for another flight simulator ... Maybe that delivers better what you are looking for?

As I did most of my past years (doing flight sims since the Amiga500 times and tried most flight focused "games" since then) simflight stuff on the civilian focused side _because_ the military stuff was much too complex for the time I could spent with flight simulation, I am quite sure you underestimate the level one has to step over to get what DCS simulated planes already deliver. I think ED knows very well where their market share is with their current product beeing a study level sandbox simulator. And they know as well what problems they currently have and maybe what they will be running into in the future if they can't keep up with hardware and software development. But as I mentioned from my own experience in gaming and simulation software development its not all about money to develop new stuff and new systems / game engines without breaking stuff or even abandon some things. And if I take a look at where DCS is now and even the oldest modules get a substantial refresh I think ED is doing a great job securing already done purchases and make great progression as well. There are drop backs, yes, there are sometimes even one step forward and two back, too. But that's real live of developing and maintaining complex software architectures. Plus: the people you get for designing and coding new modules and the ones you need for core engine development are quite different. Those are highly skilled people that even if you have all the money don't grow on trees - else every one with enough money could bring up something like DCS from the scratch and sell it on a low cost subscription fee to the masses... And in which todays and past flight sims do you get at least the level of simulation your so called "partially working planes" in DCS deliver already? So the bang for the buck I already get out of my DCS stuff is worth the passion it needs to get some steps further. Maybe its that I am still not retired nor am I a scholar or student anymore with p!enty of freely adjustable time, so that the time I could spent for learning DCS stuff is so less that the already working things are nearly too much to cover for me. But that doesn't hold me back from buying and trying new stuff like the already fantastic Channel map and the lovely P-47. Not only because I easily can afford the 80 bucks ED calls for, but its even with the actual performance problems and sometimes only partial working things a lot of fun and experience to play around with it. Maybe it would be a good advice for everyone seeing DCS on the doomsday side already to enjoy more what we already have and get more passion that good things need time to come. Or do you have nothing else to spent your time on if DCS works not so well for some weeks?

You seem much too be focused on the plain financial aspect and regret the other points I made, why I (!) won't pay for a "game" (!) on a subscription base and the more what makes you expect that more money at all would solve the problems DCS struggles from at the moment? what makes you expect that a subscription rate would bring substantial more interest and users to such a high-level simulation? Just as a sidenote: I was very involved in the development of the SimRacing game Project CARS 2 version (already a minimum backer on version 1). I payed a real high amount for beeing part of the second version, spent much more time during the development phase then after release playing it. But the deep inside knowledge of game development I learned from taking part as a hardcore Beta tester there was worth all the money for me. Project CARS (Community Assisted Racing Simulator) was started to develop a SimRacing game on the demands and with the focus on the hardcore racing simulation users interest. That worked that well for the 1st Version that some substantial backers got back several times what they spent to get it started. That financing model was abandoned for the second version and changed more to a focus on peop!e that wanted to spent money to get really deep involved in the development process. Long story short: what was started as a kind of a hardcore SimRacing community project was broadend to the mass market of racing games. And to attrackt more players they now - and after selling the whole project to one of the major game publishers - dumb down the simulation part and add more gaming and fun features. I am quite sure: from a business perspective abandoning simulation to attract the more casual players will gain them a lot more money then they ever could have made with the 1st attemp by making a hardcore SimRacing community driven racing simulation game and develop it further from this starting point. Whats the point vor DCS: if ED really wants and needs to make much more money they only would have to dump DCS, switch to MAC and get in competition with World of Aircraft. Then even a subscription model would make sense, because with pushing out a rather simple and accessible but shiny and solid kind of simulation game one could attract much more people on a regular basis so that temporarly user shifts wouldn't even be noticable. One just has then to provide a stable base and release from time to new models, scenarios (aka maps) with a standard system so that the user doesn't have to change its habits for playing successful in a competitive environment. But such a system would be far of the study sandbox simulation we have today with DCS. I doubt that's what the majority of the DCS simulation community is looking for. There you have to have some passion for getting used to use the stuff you pay for - and for getting a substantial development progress. Because with such a complex system its not easy to change things on one side without risking to break something on the other. Back to my Project CARS example: introducing a much more complex weather simulation in the second version resulted in a bunch of new problems that had to get solved to get it work at all. After that process it had a very sophisticated weather simulation which worked very well in human MP scenarios, but as soon as AI gets involved the experience gets its flaws simple because there is no PC hardware on the market that could keep up with simulating all the stuff for a human players car to a significant number of AI controlled cars, too. In the end the whole attempt for a more realstic weather simulation was more of a showcase then beeing accepted and honored or even used by the majority of the player base. The hardcore simulation racers liked it - the player base that delivers the most money wants a more shiny and casual access. Now you get stuck in a Catch22 dilemma.

To counter your last sentence: the barrier to leave it behind, not give it a second glimpse, if it doesn't feel right from the beginning or abandon the subscription as soon as you switch your sparetime focus is as easy, too. I for myself would never use a subscription for a computer game. I had once upon Xbox Gold Pass on a 12+1 month rate, but after that period was over I never renewed it, because I didn't use it that much in that time - even if it was bundled with getting a lot of free games only usable during the subscription. What the subscription "fans" promote as a golden solution for gathering a more substantial funding for core development could lead to a complete financial and product desaster that could let you stand there with nothing more at all. Following the Hawk Desaster that could happen with ED as a whole, too. Sure. But as long as they can sell single modules in a reasonable rate on more or less fixed prices to a somehow slightly growing user base it would mean a solid calculation base too. Not so with a subscription system, if its not at least only for a minimum of a yearly basis. Else one would risk that esp. during the time of the year, when most people spent their time outdoors, a lot would cancel their subscription during this phase to start again, when weather gets worst. And even with a years based subscription you have a much higher risk of complete loss of customers due to temporarly changed interest. With the actual thing, the user made a kind of invest in the product and the mental pressure to use it at least now and then, check for new things, buy new modules etc. seems much higher. E.g. I never got into iRacing for SimRacing despite a lot hardcore users tell you that's the only as real as it gets racing sim and the only place to have really qualified MP races. Why: its to expensive for me to use it just once a week or less lack of fixed time for regular or even organised usage plenty of good buyable alternatives that I could use as long as its compatible with newer releases of the necessary operating system whenever I like without having or need for renewing a subscription license Long story short: Besides alltime hardcore users I think a subscription model would cut the player base significantly and would result in less money for further development or even the loss of DCSW at all. Military Flight Simulation is a tiny niche in an already small market. And even in the SimRacing Business there is just one developer that offers a subscription model and that one could profit from an already rather professional "player" base with a lot of real world race drivers using it as a training aid. Every kind of PC based flight simulator, even the professional oriented single one, is in my knowledge far away from this.

I didn't vote here, because I think the main problem isn't version counting, but the software architecture and technology base DCS is currently at. That's what needs a steep progression or even a shift, but ... I am doing SimRacing as well since some years. And if you look into that much broader "gaming niche" you can find several business models that succeed more or less in parallel. One that is very similar to todays DCS is that of Sector3 doing RaceRoom Racing Experiments (R3E): base game with some race tracks and cars is free of charge underlying simulation engine is technical wise evolving with a certain progress the graphics engine (still DX9-based) shows its age but still performs very well even in VR income for the devs mainly results from selling new cars and tracks and in recent times from letting players pay some fees on special organized events including the opportunity of winning prices - there is some additional income from other businesses like game rooms with fixed racing rigs for rent and getting more and more involved in the upcoming eSports part, but that's nothing I see for SimFlying in the Future at all... While the shift to a complete new game/sim engine with mostly state of the art graphics technology plus real changes of day and time including night as well is proposed for several years, these developers mainly focus in improving the simulation engine with adding more details to what gets simulated. This new simulation stuff gets released with the new cars and tracks first, so there is a lot interest in getting the new things through buying this new stuff. But those technical improvements also get shifted over to older content by time - without having to pay again. One of the main differences is, that SimRacing especially in the MP part consists of holding certain race events. Some are organized in leagues, what can bei compared to a certain grade with the virtual squadrons in SimFlying. DCS - and other similar military simulations like ARMA, are more like a sandbox, were the players join in scenario like events - that's for SP as well as MP. Several scenarios can build up to something like a campaign let it be static or dynamical. Well in SimRacing its a bit like a complete championship consisting of several races etc.The main difference is that those scenarios had to be handcrafted with tools and add-ons of the simulation and are much more complex if done right than adding just some races with certain cars and tracks into a race schedule and have some kind of point system and maybe racing classes... there's a lot of work around organizing a league, but that's not much different to organize a virtual squadron and that doesn't count for the sim system at all. One of the other great competitors in SimRacing with a subscription based business model is iRacing. There you not only have to buy most of the cars and tracks but also have to pay a steep monthly/yearly fee to use the content. The main and so far only focus there is helding organized MP races and league championships. Most of this is done by the developer itself. To make a Championship on your own, one - a private racing league e.g. - even has to rent the MP server module. Now, if you look at the main differences between SimRacing and SimFlying I mentioned above, you will maybe recognize that such a subscription model would mostly work in the organized MP squadron based part of DCS - and that's a real small niche inbetween the whole Military SimFlying niche. Well there's the 1st option left: paying a substantial price for every main release of the base simulation aka DCS World plus maybe some upgrade fee for your "older" modules to use them further in new main releases. While this kind of business model works very well for a lot of game franchises (no matter if its something like the F1 series or Battlefield) even without having an option to pay for upgrades of older stuff I have big doubts that this would be a real option for that kind of advanced simulation we have with DCS and its modules. I fear it would just lead to a more splitted player base of those (few) that what would like to keep up with every main shift and those left behind that would like to stay on a certain development status even if it gets abandoned with a new release. Though after a big wall of text I think the only way to stay with what we have with DCS and its advanced complex military flight simulation is the kind of R3E business model with paying development progression by selling new aircraft modules, maps/scenarios and campaigns while doing a more or less slow progression in the further development of the base technology. If and when ED as the developer has or gets the ressources - skilled developers and finance and time - to do a substantial technology shift so that the DCS engine would get more use of modern hardware and therefrom performs much better and more reliable than what we get and have to live with at the moment, well, that's a question only ED Management could anwser to...:huh:

+1 Und jau - die Folierung sieht verdammt cool aus :thumbup: ... Flying Circus :pilotfly:

Dürfte vllt. den/die eine/n od. andere/n interessieren: https://www.aero.de/news-35307/Pilotenfehler-war-Ursache-fuer-Eurofighter-Zusammenstoss.html

Wonderful display flight that I found recently on Youtube:

++1:thumbup: Ergänzung: wobei mir auch hierbei wieder auffällt, dass z.B. die brit. Eurofighter Typhoon schon 2011 im Rahmen der Operation Ellamy in Libyen (vgl. Tag 25 - 11. April 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ellamy) erstmals im scharfen Einsatz in einer Luft-Boden-Rolle offenbar erfolgreich mit Paveway-II-Bomben gegnerische Panzer zerstört hatten ... bei der Lw beginnt man erst seit ca. 2019 (vgl. eingeschränkt: https://esut.de/2019/01/fachbeitraege/streitkraefte-fachbeitraege/10285/eurofighterverband-in-der-luft-boden-rolle/) operativ damit sich in diese neue Rolle v.a. mangels dramatisch zunehmend schlechterer Verfügbarkeit der IDS Tornado operativ hineinzufügen (Erste vorsichtige Schritte gehen zwar auf 2017 zurück, vgl: https://www.presseportal.de/pm/81895/3819587 - aber von operativ konnte damals noch gar kaum die Rede sein- und auch das Datum lag 6 Jahre nach den ersten scharfen (!) Einsätzen der Briten). Warum wir bei allem immer weit später als die anderen Verbündeten in gleichen Programmen (Tiger und A400 ähnlich) zum Ziel gelangen, wäre sicherlich mal eine gründliche Untersuchung wert ...

Deswegen sagte ich ja: für eingeschränkte Einsatzszenarien als Interims-Lösung... die F/A-18s Mittelfristig brauchen wir meiner Ansicht nach ein eigenes neues SEAD/SIGINT-Kampfflugzeug , denn auch die Growler werden nicht ewig halten, auch wenn Deutschlad 'ne gute Tradition hat an altem Kram (um nicht zu sagen Museumsflugbetrieb) weit über jedes MHD hinaus festzuhalten bzw. festhalten zu müssen mangels tauglichem und frühzeitig geplantem und beschafftem Ersatz. Und ob die nukleare Teilhabe, die mit entsprechender Know-How-Preisgabe /-Transfer an den großen NATO-Verbündeten jenseits des Atlantik verbunden wäre, noch so ewig lange Bestand hat, sehe ich nicht als zwingenden Grund sich nicht genau nur für diesen Fall auch ein paar spezielle extra Maschinen auf dem Hof zu halten - viel teurer als der gegenwärtige nationale Museumsbetrieb mit TORNADO IDS wird das auch kaum sein... Dass dann der national allein übrig gebliebene "Bastelshop für Kampfflugzeuge" und ähnliches Equipment - es hätte da einst auch noch eine gar nicht so schlechte Fa. namens Dornier in Bayern gegeben, die unter tatkräftiger Mithilfe eines ehemaligen bayerischen Ministerpräsidenten ein ziemlich unrühmliches und jähes Ende fand...:music_whistling: - auch nicht das in der Qualität und Zeit liefert, was benötigt wird, hat viele Gründe, an denen der Bastelshop oft selbst, aber meist nicht allein schuld ist ... ich zitiere nur die kühne Idee eines ehemaligen IBUK aus dem zweistrahlig geplanten und konstruierten Jäger90 mitten in der (ersten?) finalen Entwicklungsphase zur Einsparung von Geld ein einstrahliges LFZ zu machen oder das Hin und Her um die Notwendigkeit einer BK in selbigem LFZ...:doh:

Man sollte bzgl. "Beschaffungsvorhaben" gerade im Rüstungsbereich m.E. neben der grundlegenden operationellen Notwendigkeit, die sich aus vielen Aspekten zusammensetzt, meiner Ansicht nach immer auch ansehen, inwieweit man z.B. wirklich eigenständig (also als Nation) über das Beschaffte dann verfügen darf / kann. Das betrifft im Weiteren dann natürlich auch die Eigenständigkeit sich selbst mit dem Notwendigen zu versorgen aka auch für diesen extrem kritischen Wirtschafts-/Produktionsbereich wie eben die Landesverteidigung die notwendige Expertise und Produktionsfähigkeit zu haben. Ich denke gerade die aktuelle Gesundheitskrise zeigt drastisch, worin die Grenzen global-vernetzter Märkte bestehen und wie weitgehend erst einmal hilflos man über Wochen und Monate dastehen kann, selbst bei so primitiven Produkten wie den notwendigen Schutz- und Hygieneartikeln. Von so Komplexem wie modernen Waffensystemen will ich da erst gar nicht anfangen. Demzufolge macht für mich eine Interims-Beschaffung von weitgehend noch zeitgemäßen F/A-18 Super Hornet / Growlern für beschränkte Einsatzzwecke wie nukleare Teilhabe und SEAD/SIGINT durchaus Sinn. Davon ab: Wenn sich vergleichsweise wirtschaftlich kleine Staaten wie Schweden eine Entwicklung wie die Gripen völlig eigenständig oder auch Frankreich bei all ihren militärischen Jet-LFZ der letzten 50 Jahre "leisten" können, dann sollte eine der Top-5 Industrienationen wie Deutschland so etwas doch mehr als leicht zustande bekommen - sonst kann man sich m.E. alles Militärische besser gleich sparen! Und abschließend zur F-35: Man mag zur Türkei stehen wie man will, aber so wie USA auch hier bislang quasi nach Gutsherrenart vermeintlich gewünschtes/unerwünschtes Verhalten belohnen/bestrafen, sollte man es sich bei aller "Freundschaft" zweimal überlegen, ob man das strategische Schwergewicht der eigenen Luftwaffe langfristig auf so einen Partner abstützen will (vgl. z.B.: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa-tuerkei-kampfjets-103.html) - das ergänzend zur Verfügungsgewalt über ein gekauftes Produkt, was bei modernen LFZ nämlich zugleich auch entsprechend langfristige und zuverlässliche Versorgung mit Wartung, Ersatzteilen, Modernisierung (v.a. von Software heutzutage) und Integration ggf. eigener Waffen und Sensoren betrifft - gerade bzgl. letzerem ist die F-35 ein ziemlich großer "closed shop" ...:smilewink: