dumgrunt

beat me to it. try flying the F-15 without the CAS and the A-10 with the SAS disengaged respectively, big difference in their controllablity.

if scenery is set to low, i have found in the past that forests disappear.

great Australian documentary on the a-4

That is an incredibly expansive question. Do you mean in the context of setting up a mission or co-ordinating a company or battalion attack? Then you have combined arms tactics with all sorts of different level of organic support and force multipliers. One of the more interesting things I read from the 2008 war was that the classic soviet doctrine of up the guts with armour and shit loads of artillery was highly susceptible to the standard western doctrine of "fix and flank" ( not technically correct for our way of doing things but the effect is very similar) When the Georgians decided to press the engagement. Only lasted so long once the Russians got the reenforcement flow going of course. For stuff at brigade and above, google manouver warfare to get a bit a concept, and certainly there are elements to that approach that filter down to all levels.

every day that goes by you guys become closer to being the 7th state :P

you are going to slow, with that payload you are more looking at 200 kts. watch your vertical speed indicator, should be less than 500ft/min on final. dont worry, i spudded her into the deck or busted the landing gear a few times with the new model.

errr, i failed year 11 physics at school, and even i can tell you that drag matters alot. the freight train analogy is ridiculous since you are talking a 100 times difference in mass. and that SUV analogy kuky, maybe at 100km/h yes, but at 300 km/h, absolutely no way. when they were doing top speed tests of the porsche SUV when it came out a few years ago, folding in the MIRRORS made about a 20km/h difference in top speed. the faster you go the more drag works against you.

Hmm, ok. looking at your video, it looked as if you still had good roll authority, and to be honest looked like how the a-10a would behave (AFM v PFM, no advanced systems modelling). ill be honest ive never tried the a-10c with game flight mode so i wouldnt know. every time ive snapped a wing off ive lost all hydraulics, hence had to switch to man reversion, roll authority is considerably degraded, and contrary to other peoples experiences i found it very hard to keep it level over 200 kts. dropping all stores, rudder trim, and gear down i found helped stability considerably. landing speed was generally around 150kts. ive done it in a controlled setting a few times, but never actually managed to get home "on a mission" after loosing a wing (blown off asopposed to ripped off). although one time i did manage to keep control and head home, but i think i got too high stalled and entered an unrecoverable spiral after about 20mins. so far as actual operational history, we have all seen quite a few them get home with the crap belted out of them. to the best of my knowledge the closest one has came to coming home after loosing its wing was during desert storm. they were doing a night interdiction run, flying at about 5000ft, and one of the flight got wacked with an SA-2. it left a massive hole in the wing, to the point where only the main spars were there, but some of the outer wing was still intact. the story is recounted in detail in one of the older discovery channel docos about the a-10 on YT some where. I wish id saved the link, because I think its probably the best doco done on the a-10 to date. ill confess i have landed the f-15 (AFM version) with half a wing gone. 30mm really doesnt compromise does it? really all that was needed was some serious roll trim, and landed at about 200kts, dropping flaps made it uncontrollable. i actually found landing with CAS off more difficult. of course, when they get round to advanced systems modelling, ie hydraulic pressure, im sure it wont be so easy. oh and just because im an f-14 fanboy and could let the eagle get the upper hand in a pissing contest.... story of a f-14 landing with half a wing gone.... http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/06/f-14-damaged/

Nup, she was designed to get home on one tail, one engine and from memory up to 10ft of wing missing. Were you flying on game mode? Didnt see you switch to manual reversion after loosing all hydraulic pressure...

Chime in much there champ? I can tell you that in real life, various assets will be as such the intel picture will give a fairly good idea of the disposition of the enemy. And as I eluded too, its not just the disposition of the threats that will shape your planning, its the terrain. In fact the enemy and terrain are really (apart from the mission itself obviously) the most important elements in formulating your plan. you might call that cheating. I would call it planning. If you find yourself in a fair fight, you've f***ed up. simple as that.

do you fly the shortest route from the airbase to your target? do a proper threat appreciation and PLAN your route. but like has been mentioned, even with the best flight plan on the planet, you might get in, but you probably wont get out without some top cover. if you are without support and insist on trying anyway... once you do see that RWR light up, look for some decent terrain masking, and drop down so low that you are mowing the grass. once the RWR drops off, change your bearing, and go like a bat out of hell (as much as the old girl can).

Nice find, dont worry you are not the only one procrastinating at the moment! I was going to say that doesnt look like Williamtown or Amberly. I dont think its albatross either. Definitely somewhere on the east coast but.

dont worry mate, the NZDF is really just the "fourth arm" of the ADF ;) i'd give my left nut to get an electric rat. maybe partner with an existing 3rd party developer?

someone actually posted a link to that "news" feature to assert the raptor is crap... Just. Wow. that is all.

The F-4 was also developed in the time when mass launches of unguided rockets were used as an intercept weapon, and missilery was still in its infancy. Also in Vietnam the BVR engagements would have been outside the standing ROE. I'm not saying that WVR combat is obsolete or that guns are superfluous. Im just saying that things have changed considerably since the 1960's when this was last a big point of discussion. besides, as from what I have read about Red flag exercises. The Raptors do rather well against gen 4.5+++++ etc aircraft, which is what the Su-35 is. And the Raptor was designed and selected with the best ACM ability in mind. and for the record, I'm all for "fix bayonets". http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10 there is reason why they still teach it.

considering they are now part of NATO, yes they would, and as someone mentioned their stocks of R-27s are drying up, so presumably they are no longer receiving Russian support. The Iranians integrated the f-14 and the R-27.

i thought they had integrated NATO weapons compatibility with their legacy aircraft?

another reason i would say is that it forces the pilot to make a visual ID. if they were expecting to get bounced by a bogey, the presumption would be that intel would inform this threat picture, and hence would adjust their posture accordingly.

Jesus I thought we had to jump through hoops here. It takes all sorts I guess, my idea of shooting is a jungle carbine and a few thousand acres to bring home some dinner. I don't know much about long range shooting but I do know a little bit about getting the best accuracy. First short heavy floating barrels, second glass bedding, third and this is entirely subjective, wooden stocks all the way I reckon they are better balanced and give better control but that's just me, last but certainly not least, get the best (not the most expensive) glass AND mounts you can buy. And as an aside, you'll need to get into reloading you own ammo for the best results. That savage looks more like a hunting rifle than a target rifle, but would probably be fine becuas it will take some practise before you can outshoot it. There are some interesting sub disciplines like vintage sniper and the fly shoot. Vintage sniper can be the mos expensive, an original no. 4 mk1 T will set you back 10 grand and up, a repro might be 2k. Fly shoot is literally shooting a target with a picture of a (large) fly at up to 400m. The really serious guys use subsonic .22 ammunition to avoid transonic buffeting and wake. Anyway, good on you for getting into it, if you though simming could be expensive, just wait till you really get into shooting.

hahaha, ABC + carlo Kopp, thats an interesting team. ABC is the government broadcasting/news service, rabidly socialist agenda, even the former left wing labour government was having second thoughts about them. ANY chance they get embarrass defence, whether on speculation, truth or generally just sensationalised and decontextualised crap, they take with glee and fervor. The ABC, in a major report they produced in 2002, suggested that we follow the lead of the kiwis and not replace our fighter aircraft, "since there was no forseeable need for such a capability". they suggested upgrading the P-3 fleet instead because that could fulfill the role of maritime strike and was more adaptable for humanitarian missions. This was despite the fact that we had faced off with the TNI only 3 years before in the timor leste intervention (half our hornets and pigs were deployed to tindal incase the TNI decided to resist), and that at the time there were already tell tale signs that there was a looming strategic struggle between the US and the Chinese. Basically if they are reporting about defence, it should be treated at best as perverted comedy. and any mention Carlo Kopp's name to anyone in defence, and you generally will either get an eye roll, or outright derision and laughter. anyway there was no mention in that video about any problems with the F-22. In fact air power australia (the "experts" in that video) were actually lobbying for 3 Sqn F-22/ 2 Sqn overhauled and updated f-111 force mix for the RAAF. Anyway, so far as Australia's fighter needs at the moment, the problem is that we are in a policy limbo. the doctrine was basically defence of Australia, chiefly the north west shelf, which meant a good maritime strike capability, and something that could, say for example, tie up an indian carrier air wing, while the strike packages went in. CAS was a secondary consideration, but important none the less. the maritime strike and the ability for CAS, while being a capable and maintainable fighter were the chief considerations for us picking the hornet. The f-15 was considered, but deemed unsuitable because it was purely A2A (remeber this was going on the early 80s), the viper was rejected because it had one engine (we lost a few mirages and electric rats to engine failure leading up to this). The F-14's that were meant to be delivered to the iranians were offered to us at well under cost, but were rejected bascially to do with with the cost of maintaining them, and that they couldnt do strike at the time. Hence everything we wanted was in the hornet. So far as now, following 15 years, and four major operational deployments, the trend has been going towards basically a force that can integrate seamlessly in a coalition environment, with a focus on niche specialised high value assets, such as the growlers, the wedgetails, SF, RISTA. our conventional submarines are also starting to fit in this catergory after finally having most of the creases iron out of the design. Hence in lieu of this, the F-35 might not be the worst design. It has to be remembered that G W and Howard, the PM at the times, are good mates, and Howard signed us up for it. It also has to be remembered that the last aircraft we signed up for while it was on the drawing board, had massive development issues, and was nearly 10 years late, was the F-111. And that aircraft, few people in know here would argue that it was our most strategically important asset, and the most capable aircraft we ever operated. I could go into a big discussion on whether we actually needed to retire the pig, or the pin got pulled because the chief of airforce at the time (a helicopter pilot by trade) was rabidly anti F-111 because he was allergic to two airframe fast jet fleet. but thats for another day.

glide bombs are a whole class of their own. in testing an f-22 threw (not literally tossed) a SDB about 40kms away. if you want to look at glide bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon

when i finished school despite the fact i had no medical problems, had good marks and no real commitments, I was more interested in digging holes, crawling through the mud then cleaning weapons. then doing that all over again. thought about it seriously since first buying A-10C a couple of years ago, but honestly then main things here are you get bugger all time in the aircraft (fleet being at the end of its life, dwindling budget, F*** only knows when the F-35 will arrive), no prospects of being deployed anytime soon, and most of all, WTF do you do when you get out? I made many serious inquiries with various people in the know about the prospects of the commercial aviation industry and no one (from aviation business specialist to current pilots) had bright hopes for the future.

exactly, tactics. the tactics that are used to employ them are separate from the aircraft's potential effectiveness. if you are talking pure attrition which you seem to be, its a moot point because the argies were employing the pucar in a maritime strike role, against what were some of the best air warfare maritime vessels of the day.... and well yes it is impressive when you think that the harriers were up against, A-4s, Mirages and F-4s, all of which are better fighter aircraft, yet the only A2A victory was by a pucar? the a-10 victories were both against utility helos, no different at all. it has payload, loiter and survivability, all important in a CAS aircraft.

i wouldnt be so dismissive. the article also states that the pucar was the only aircraft to to score a confirmed argie air to air victory during the entire war. (remarkably similar to the A-10s only a2a victory except the pucar had to do it with 7.62 machine guns, not a 30mm cannon) it was also the only aircraft that could operate from the islands themselves especially after that famous bombing run by the poms. it was also noted as being able to sustain a substantial amount of punishment. if it was in the right hands it would probably be better at CAS than the skyraider which the seppos were using only a decade before in Vietnam. also if i recal correctly, the pommy boots on the ground had a particular fear associated with the pucar. so i doubt it could be deemed useless even in a medium intensity conflict like the falklands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA_58_Pucar%C3%A1 has worked for a number of "budget" airforces. im not sure how well they fared in the falklands, but it would be hard to tell owing the argies tactics.