Kaktus29

from the beginning it looks like your normal test or the cabin of mi-28 to resist small and medium caliber shots but then i see a GUY IN THERE while testing.. wtf, are they for real? what if the glass had inferior quality.. dangerous stuff there)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fj9hdmEeBY check the 1:58 especially proves that a real human is in the cockpit in the time of the shot taken.. geeez louis..this is Russian roulette on a totally new higher level..

i hope DCS develops the ground control of SAM infrastructure more..it will be a blast playing it in multiplayer.. SAMs waiting with turned off radars in total passive mode, and only AWACS and mobile EW giving and updating the picture every so often and then even them turning it off.. creating ambush zones for incoming CAP, Superiority planes would complicate the first round of action very much for everyone.. aaa, one can dream...

the problems as i see it are small sales numbers because of the small niche market.. i don't think Belsimtek wanted to do this fire-sale like this, but what is to be done? think about it.. you put the 49$ sale first.. hopefully you capture 65% of the potential clients in 3 months, after this you drop the 50% of the price to capture another 10-20% of clients.. but if in the first days,weeks sales don't increase as they should they are FORCED to drop the price and with it anger the prime-clients who paid top-price .. if anything we should all be worried that the market for such products is so small that we might all together just see the end of heli-simulators if not even aviation simulators.. this is what worries me more.. the fact that a company would feel the urge and need to do this is alarming to say the least.. What can Belsimtek do in the future? maybe drop the price to 34.99$ for the first 2 months and then reduce it 25% to 26-28$ and see how that goes.. they have to strike the balance right to make sure efficiency in sales is improved but also do a simple analysis if this line of work even pays.. the hours put in, the work put in, and then to have to do a fire-sale so close to the prime-opening is just jaw-dropping feel to it.. i really hope i'm wrong cuz if i'm not either the market is REALLY BAD, or Belsimtek is just "blessed" with weird sales pitch logic (which i highly doubt)..

@feofun you are making it worse as you keep touting your already discarded and proven wrong nonsense.. its sad that in 21th century still people exist that cannot say "i have been proven wrong,my assumption that ONLY 12 aircrafts exist has been mistaken and i admit to have been wrong".. it's sad that instead of admitting this simple reality you keep going into offensive and make it even worse.. a typical person that has invested so much effort to make his lie stick that feels no option but to go over the top in order not to admit to have been wrong.. you end up looking like collin powel or obama today sticking the non-existent evidence of iraqi nukes ready to bomb london in 45 minutes))

i don't think its so easy as OP described it.. first of all the "air war" wouldn't be fought in the air..most of the engagements would be tactical in nature,airbases would be hit with tactical cruise missiles and short ballistic missiles with conventional warheads.. this would put out all the f-16,mig-29,grippens out cuz of short range.. airbases further away would still be targeted with cruise missiles but damage would be less obvious and air-strips more easily repairable.. even then, i wouldn't expect a major AIR WAR cuz of AD present in both blocks.. A successful SEAD,DEAD missions are prepared 2 months in advance, with numerous spying such as with PLANES not satellites ..to do this in time of 100% cruise missile denying airbases to operate at 100% efficiency makes the whole air war much less active than thought.. in such condition a ground war would begin and would be crucial in deciding the war effort.. this is all theoretical of course, in real ground war tactical nuke arty rounds would fly of which Russia has the majority of them, so ground war would be won by Russia easily, but then west would reply with strategic nukes and so on and on until we are all reduced to rubble..

i think getting the first DCS:RADAR especially ground RADAR working will be a tectonic shift... clickable everything is of course desired but i think the radar this is even more important.. hitting ground targets in bad weather with no visibility and with radar help and also hitting,searching,tracking air targets with complex nuances in radar is also a joy when finally implemented.. we can only hope ED is close to this and not quite far far away..

it would seem some have problems accepting the fact Russians used logic, psychology to come to terms of what color is needed while US went straight to Darth Vader fashion .. we see this trend of western technology lovers argue everything Russians do no matter how sensible just since west wasn't the first one to do that instead.. the moment abrams and leopard get the auto-loaders for the tanks all of a sudden we will hear west invented auto-loaders and this is the future of tank combat.. lol.. it is what it is.. and no, crescendo, this isn't us making stuff up, this is proven that blue color soothes one's mind and it certainly helps your eyes adjust from observing the outside of cockpit (sky,light blue sky,etc) back to instrument panel-light blue.. the transition is much easier for the eyes.. http://psychology.about.com/od/sensationandperception/a/colorpsych.htm studies proving this are numerous, but studies proving other logic that you support-black color somehow being helpful are very few indeed if any at all.. for instance, would anybody love to have their kitchen painted in BLACK? or bedroom? or any room for that matter? ..

well, this conversation is useless really.. it frankly doesn't matter.. Israel would strike IF and that is big IF they decide to do so under severe stress since they would have to go around the Red Sea,up the Persian Gulf and back.. need to refuel 3 times and send insane amount of planes with it (EW, Escort, Bombing package,Recon,Escort for Recon).. All of this would happen during the night and possible by using stand-off weapons to hit the targets before even entering Iranian airspace.. so how could F-14 even engage this?.. its not like Israel would declare WAR, then 5 hours later fly to Iran where F-14 might just as well wait for him.. Israel cannot for geographical reasons-unless Iraq gives them an airbase(highly unlikely) fight air war against iran.. this is silly notion.. they can perform a terrorist hit and thats that.. one sting..and then iran unleashes 15.000 missiles into tiny israel and demolish it completely(iron dome or no iron dome).. Then US would have to come in to fight Israels war.. we've all seen this game before..and frankly its not amusing,especially if you are US soldier or Iranian/Iraqi one..

there should be one and only threat called WagFriday where forum members joyfully or not speculate about the new update etc.. in that way its not cluttered since its 1 thread.. i enjoy the speculations and such, and i also agree opening ever new wags-friday threads is not good for forum.. so, can we have 1 thread and only 1 where we can hang together and keep amusing ourselves with our ideas and hopes what the next update will bring?)

be careful, i mentioned US being like Nazi Germany in ideology of superiority.. germans designed tanks, planes, rifles, machine guns that were totally superior in quality to everybody else?..why? ideology.. could the engineers build same tanks with less obsession of superior armor, gun, etc? of course they could, but that did't fit the ideology.. US is same, the fact that a US pilot would be shot down-just 1 pilot-is unheard of for US air force..for them its total failure and they will do whatever is necessary to prevent it.. you see they can't accept a battle loss part of the war .. for this reason battling the nazis took ages in western theater in europe when US engaged them and for same reason US was afraid of invading japan but started lobbing nukes instead.. this is a huge vulnerability in my opinion. i'm not saying use your pilots, soldiers as expandable clay you can build new in factories later but acknowledging attrition in war as something normal is how wars are fought..otherwise you are totally alergic to actually being able to fight a real total war..which what happened in 2WW to US and France, UK.. Bombing campaign of germany didn't yield results but mostly was a terror campaign intended to intimidate and terrorize the civilian population.. similar to shock and awe stage in iraq.. philosophy is in superiority and reducing casualties to zero in friendly lines..for casualty means vulnerability .. this to me is stupid notion.. about war in general, reason why no big total war after 2WW is obvious-nukes..and today even if nukes wouldn't exist possibility of total war would still be small since cruise missiles can enact same disaster as nukes by targeting the very important water-cleaning filtering stations, electrical transformation stations, water dams, etc.. one can pretty much kill millions of people through secondary effects by using cruise missiles(a city with no electricity and most of the oil depot exploded, destroyed will have no means of electrical power to use and transport water to the city population that would die in hundreds of thousands(a city of 4 million for instance).. F-35, F22, PAk, etc.. all this plane in the future will mean, especially if one has them allot, that this weapon platforms become strategic in nature .. today there is no front line, where it gets hard to cross, basically one can target every small spot in strategic rear one can imagine.. and thus this acts in same manner as nukes did and still do..this is what prevents war from going hot.. but, a numerical and quality superiority can push the one who is superior into action of war, this is only normal.. when huge discrepancy happens in the world of military power war breaks out.. for same reason native indians were slaughtered by english settlers ..if indians would be armed with rifles most probably there would be lots of "respect" and much less expansion to the west part of US.. about China attacking Taiwan..)lol.. this will not happen, thats like saying Poland will attack Austria in 1938.. it doesn't make sense.. now Germany attacking poland..that makes sense..

@night... i agree completely.. if one looks at efficiency than a mix is only thing that works.. since whats the point of having 100% stealth fleet if you will need stealth in maybe 2-4 days of the war and then the next 200 days you could easily operate and destroy the enemy on the ground with conventional planes of 4th generation?.. But one has to understand if this is what US would do it would mean less profit on projects like F-35, F-22.. Lockheed doesn't want to loose return on investment they made in their projects so its politically inconvenient to go against the money current.. Russia on the other hand since it's forced to be much more rational with money is doing the rational thing, making a mix of stealth fleet with 4th++ generation planes.. since Stealth will always be used as the tip of the spear in the battle not as a CAS,and ground attack after enemy has been severely subdued .. Cost-wise its also better, since stealth planes are much more expensive to maintain, train on, and use.. why did the comanche the stealth battle chopper fail in US? cuz it doesn't warrant the expense with what it gives.. apache can easily do the mission without being stealth, .. being afraid to die to make planes, tanks that are impervious to being hit is surely not a way to go, of course one wants to minimize casualties but when one is afraid to sustain any kind of damage its a sure sign of problems in the field of war fighting.. people want to believe pilots are not expendable.. lol.. yes they are, just as the soldiers are, or even civilians.. in war if you are a general you have to make mathematical equation where the end result is victory that is acceptable.. a nuke exchange even if it yields a victory is not worth is since your population would die from leukemia and cancer in 20 years time for sure.. so, if the equation balances out to come out as a winner you do it..simple.. sacrificing 100 pilots but getting total air superiority with all the benefits this entails is worth it, or sacrificing 5 planes and ZERO pilots(cuz planes are AI advanced 6th generation for example) but no more than 5 planes since they cost 10 billion a piece.. so you see, its economics, what can you afford as a nation.. money, materials, people.. all this forms an equation.. when you have scarcity in one field that that field you try to save and protect, if you have advantage in another field you try to exert it and spend it for your benefit so attrition is okei.. being extra emotional is not helpful.. we can all agree war is nasty and should be avoided, but IF it happens, its all mathematics and generals should take over to make the best choices that deliver best results.. Russia did incredibly well when making those choices in WW2 when they saw what works best.. a superior tank in all field and superior armor like nazis did? or something that is less superior but faster, more reliable and much easier to build?.. if one wants to see efficiency Russian army offers the best efficiency per pound(british monetary pound that is)).. i'm still amazed by that story in pentagon when a audit was done and they found out some of their tech geeks made a hammer that cost what was it? 700 dollars.. a normal hammer you can buy in a store for 10 bucks was 700 in US military.. technology of the hammer was same as 200 years old hammers used to have-a wooden handle, metal block-voila.. So, money begets corruption, allot of money begets lots of corruption.. US military is so awash with money they make projects that don't make sense just so they can spend the money somewhere and not return it back to the budget.. i think US will spiral in this nazi thinking of superiority and just keep pushing even more superior weapons to the point when they will have 3 most amazing fighters AI controled with artificial genetically designed brain able to put down 100 4th generation fighters and will cost 20 billion a pieace.. and 100 tanks super awesome power etc etc.. the point is nazis did this mentality and its a sure failure.. but one cannot escape this failure velocity since it feeds upon itself.. like F22 is superior yes, so why is this wrong path then? and then you keep going and going.. until you are swamped in debt and low numbers of your units and heavy maintenance that is not conducive to real military environment where spare parts, mechanics, space and peace to conduct the maintenance is nowhere to be found.. i call this the superiority trap.. once in it, there is no way coming back..

wow.. are they testing PAK nose to withstand guns fire? ..

lol.. choppers and drones replacing planes as CAS.. yeah i don't think so, one is too slow, the other is too clumsy for the job .. droping iron bombs and CBU's is not what is needed when you have a platoon of soldiers in a building being surrounded by 3 enemy platoons right near by.. you need a rocket or cannon attack.. anything else WILL kill your troops as well.. Drone cannot do that, and choppers are too slow .. we are talking CAS that is deployed across great distance and in urgent manner.. so far A-10 will outspeed AH-64 by a long shot.. A-10 not having small caliber fire? really? you checked all A-10's that came from battle? i watched a little amount of video's from Iraq desert storm in '91 and A-10 came back with multiple damage from multiple calibers, from small, medium, and big.. Again, how is F-35 capable of taking damage is really news to me, the thing is designed not to take ANY fire whatsoever.. its not armored, it can't take small arms fire yet alone big caliber fire.. as such its not CAS plane.. dropping LGB's is not CAS, its ground attack.. those two missions differ greatly.. and result can be a platoon saved or platoon annihilated..

i think A-10 retirement is coming together with outlook of how wars are to be fought in the future.. US analysis points to hi-tech wars that would hardly involve troops on the ground, so mostly its stealth, lobbing cruise missiles, dropping hundred thousands of glide-bombs and hitting important infrastructure, putting embargoes, sanctions, and just wait it out until surrender of the opponent .. if the enemy tries to counter by moving the army forward it gets obliterated by destroying supplies in the rear, without it the big army formations can't move anywhere.. and this is the outlook of US military at this point.. will it work, is the right strategy? it all depends.. technology really did advance allot, so change is needed to go with the time, but will combat on the ground really loose any meaning in the future? maybe, maybe not, ..its a risky move to make such an assumption, but if you are right you save lots of money for adjusting yourself for such a scenario and retiring A-10s, if not you made a terrible mistake that ends up with many divisions destroyed on the ground in potential war.. i personally think that yes wars are changing fast.. its mostly political and economical aspects that will determine the war.. i think total war scenarios where you employ 90% of your population in the war effort are impossible today, so you have to do with what you have-5 percent of population giving it all they got while maintaining economic situation at home during the war.. if a nation cannot do that they will simply have to surrender as they can't prosecute the war in any meaningful way in their benefit..

haha, lol.. who needs bombs when you can drop trucks on enemy.. hell yeah. ... bomb 'em with trucks.. and the rebels watched in terror as the chopper wing bombarded them with trucks of all kinds, with spare parts, machine parts, tractors and other vehicles.. the rebel pick-up trucks were decimated under heavy tractor/truck bombardments and are surrendering as we speak).. only drawback would be you end up with trucks on top of buildings.. it would make hell of a hard time cleaning up the city afterwards..

its quite hillarious that F-35 is supposed to replace A-10.. the missions that A-10 take are dangerous and demand gun strafing more or less, ..how is F-35 going to strafe his little gun when 1 AK-47 bullet might ignite the whole expensive drama queen and explode it in mid air?.. F-35 when it works and works like intended will still not be suited for close air support unless we get magic new weapons that will perform much more precisely and more quickly than A-10 delivering punishment on the ground did.. the idea of F-35 is that it would have to be flying at 40.000 feet and drop "butterfly" ammo (bombs that would make it to the target in fast way and in non-linear way to adjust for ever changing battle formations on the ground between blue and red forces). So far there is no such ammo to do CAS at 40.000 feet.. you can do ground attack at fixed positions, attack in the rear etc.. CAS is dirty job and gets you shot with small caliber weapons no matter how good you are.. F-35 being "armored as it is" is far from being suited for this job, its like saying F-22 will do CAS.. its stupid..

is US adopting Russian policy of making rockets guide-able a sign of giving respect where respect is due?.. and why did it take US soo long to come to this logical conclusion that using guided rockets is better than guided missile which are much more expensive and few.. The Russians saw this logic back in the 80's... from simple financial reality of it and testing on the ground they came to conclusion that the money spent on missile does not answer for the results they give compared to guided rockets.. Vikhr guided rockets/missiles seem more and more advanced technologically and ideologically/doctrine wise ..

@fanboy.. why US allies won in air wars versus soviet union products was strategic nature, not plane A is better than plane B.. USSR never challenged US in a way to actually destroy USA ally..for this would mean escalation of the fight that could become nuke war.. imagine this scenario where Israel starts loosing a war, USSR keeps piling 100 fighters upon 100 fighters to Egypt to replace any looses that could occur, and bring the best radar, RWR, and all that is necessary(which USSR never did btw, USSR always sold weapons to Libya,Egypt, Syria that were not just LESS capable than Russian versions used at home but were asured to be less capable than what Israel had..)..why? for same reason today Russia makes sure Israel is "okei" with what Russia sells to Syria, Iran etc.. certain weapons that can tip the balance are forbidden, and if Russia would deliver them anyway it would mean more or less from Israeli-USA side an act of war.. Since USSR was weaker economically throughout the cold war it is understandable that USSR allies always fought with a hand tied in the back while US allies fought with 100% full power of western technology. so understanding which plane is better in such conditions by comparing this "looses and air battles" is worthless .. Whatever comparison was done in Germany after USSR collapsed showed MiG-29 superiority in air combat versus F-16, .. in reality the looses sustained by Mig-29 in conflicts were always under the most unfavorable conditions.. same would happen otherwise..imagine USSR having F-15, F-16, and USA having Mig-23, Mig-29.. Israel would have still won, cuz US would deliver 1000 of fighter to Israel if they needed them, and Egypt would run out of 100 USSR f-16s and that would be that.. USSR would not deliver extra planes to replace for above stated reasons and there you have it, ..trolls 30 years later would say Mig-23 is better than F-15.. wars that have been fought are of strategic importance and reason, small things like which plane has better radar hardly compute in the calculus of who is going to win.. unless 2 major power hit it off, ..if war by proxy its more of an agreement who has the higher ground-which is higher economic growth, money to sustain fire.. in Vietnam USSR delivered about 100-150 Mig-21 and yet this small air force which hardly had time, space to train vietnamese pilots had to fight a richly experienced, trained, financed 2000+ air force of USA.. and they managed to shoot down US planes.. this alone should tell you how "worthless" USSR planes were..

would i enjoy a DCS ship/submarine? of course..but too many other elements need polishing as of today.. terrain, vehicle simulation, sound, command structure(C&C element), real recon that feeds data to the C&C that makes it possible to order air-strikes CAS and tactical ones .. after all that is done why not, i would enjoy sea stuff.. also i disagree that you need to simulate every little knob and officer.. what is needed is actually approximation.. if you need 100 officers to control the engine department is that really needed for you to enjoy a DCS ship? it depends what role do you have in the ship.. if you are the captain its pretty much giving orders that are general in nature and effects can be simulated .. if you are a radar operator or electronic officer you might do the grunt work but is that really needed or even interesting?.. maybe 20 years from now when we have ability to have a server that will hold 50.000 people and have tremendous desire by market to play such games we can have whole virtual DCS ship where every station is controlled by a player.. but until that time i would enjoy a DCS ship that is simulated (engine power, fuel consumption, sound propagation -so subs and other ships can track you and you others), sonar,weapon employments.. and that is that..

@wetta ..of course its easier to kill stuff with a-10c with guided munition and better SA.. but, thats why at least for me i like su25a better, i feel like i really excel if i get to use it and destroy the enemy in due time.. it takes much more skills to do it with su-25a than a-10c.. in a way pilots have to be even better than those flying in more computerized planes that assist them to do the task at hand.. flying, waypoints, SA, finding an enemy, egress points, positionig yourself correctly.. making all this while flying in formation with your buddies, there is no greater pleasure than seeing all this come to place and firing your weapons and destroying the targets 300 miles away with deadly effect and returning home.. Su-25A deserves a DCS fully clickable model.. or at least Su-25SM so it would be a little easier for other sim pilots who don't like to do it the old fashion way..

i got so many desktop background from this thread its stupid)) ..awesome pics.. , really loving the Havoc..

i agree, Su-25 is harder to use and acquire targets than A-10, .. for me the hardest thing is Su-25 speed..its just too big, its a damn rocket this plane..and resolution of shkval is not so much so you could effectively "scan" the ground in search of stuff, you really need to brush up on Situational awareness by simple sensor mother nature gave you-your eyes!.. so, looking for targets while flying at 9 to 3 o'clock to avoid going directly into target area, watching your speed, altitude, possible enemy fighters or enemy AD targeting you, after finding target re-positioning yourself to do a run on the target, trim the hell out of your controller for smooth control which is always more jumpy in frogger anyways, and then deploying your weapons.. frogger is designed to strike fast and run fast to survive dangerous contested air space..while a-10 was designed with more uncontested air space in mind so it can loiter more over the enemy and obviously be more effective in delivering weapons cuz of that.. when i watched those russian froggers in Georgia in '08 my god, the hud was all over the place, how in hell did the pilot managed to release those rockets on that column was beyond me.. i know now Russian air force is trying to make the frogger capable of lasing 2 or more targets in one attack run, so you can be more effective in attack, it all boils down to effectiveness(time+weapon accuracy delivered) in final stages of combat..

@mmtaraval.. its not just pilots that determine the fight but plain old overall strength.. if you have 100 F-16 with good pilots and all equippment working,radar, rwr, EW, etc.. vs. enemy air force of 4 F-15 with amazing veteran pilots.. but with maintenence problems because of sanctions that is clear the F16 side wins.. its overall power that matters.. so, numbers, money, pilot training, economic power, determination of people as a nation to go through the war.. so in the end such small issues like rafale vs. eurofighter don't really matter in strategic point of view..

lol.. what a smokescreen... reminds me of naval ships smokescreen.. impressive for a fighter .. actually its interesting as technology develops how decoys develop as well to fool the missiles.. on one side the idea of stealth and then fire from close range the "bvr" amraam, on other europe with long range missile that will cruise far range with guidence and changing course and ability to sustain flight for much longer time than usually,could be prepared to do "ambush zones" .. and the deployed decoys that fly almost like a drone like behavior.. and then deploying small missiles that will mimick the plane RCS and IR signature and "fly" with same speed,altitude as the fighter to fool the incoming missiles, to what else is new.. the new optic jammers that make new IR missiles fail pretty much 100%.. ka-52,mi-28 have that, and much more is coming.. i guess the lesson to learn here is, don't be in the attacking and aggression business, it will do good to you and planet.. oh and the new-not so new-towed-deployed ECM jammers to fool the incoming missiles.. all that really makes a bvr much harder idea.. which is why a fighter moves like a fighter not like a truck..

cobra and all the rest is not used to gun somebody down, but to use in special situations when you are fighting 2vs2 fights or other equal fights with each wingmen on some enemy ass.. and you use it only to help get a lock on and fire a missile and end the fight..in that way this is extremely beneficial..especially since at that time russians had helmet mounted fire launch capability while west didn't..it means russians could lock on and fire as soon as dogfight starts(in case enemy flies from 12 clock to 6 clock and you start turning).. to me this british pilots sounds bitter, ..like, okei, so this russian plane can do stuff we can't.big deal, its useless you see, .. )) lol.. right, thats like saying, well f22 stealth, big whoop, nothing special see, if he want' to lock on the plane he needs to use radar, it will emit radiation and boom he gets shot down.. you see nothing special.. its very disingenuous to say su-35 maneuvers are nothing special and at the same time refuse russian challenge to fight it with euro or f22.. but thats the well known western quality of double speak and double talk.. say one thing do another..