dumgrunt

yeah im still not buying it. two things which made it somewhat more likely to be found where they are looking is the satellite "calculations" and the fact the captain was in the middle of a massive personal problem. but these still have two problems. I have difficulty adding 1 + 1 (equals a window right?) but i do have a problem with a never used before and fundamentally untested, and so far as public knowledge; unconfirmed by a third party "calculation" which "irrefutably" puts a southern vector for aircraft. secondly why fly the thing for 7 1/2 hours just to ditch if it was pilot suicide. i get that the culprit may still have wanted insurance to pay out his family but why bother keeping the plane in the air for that long. another issue with the investigation is to do with the "hand shakes". they reckon owing to radar data the plane was traveling faster hence would have run out of fuel quicker, but the last hand shake still puts the aircraft at near the limit of its maximum endurance. and what about the partial handshake?? which was the last one. but most of all, why the f*** go to all that effort, and risk getting intercepted by any number of different air forces (remember it occured in probably what is the warmest flashpoint at the moment) just to spud it in to drink half way between bugger all and nothing. nup, i still think it was landed in burma, and went lord only knows where after that. at least our p-3 crews are getting some hours up i suppose.

Funniest but not the most far fetched conspiracy story I've seen on the interweb is that uncle Vladimir had it pinched so as to divert media attention from another world "issue" that cannot be mentioned on these forums..... But in all seriousness the timeline of what we do know would be very difficult to attribute to some random cause. Transponders and acars all get switched off within minutes of last atc contact, which happened at atc handover. Then immediately the plane proceeds to a new waypoint in near the opposite direction, flies up to fl450, presumably to neutralise the passengers and any crew not in on the plan (any 777 pilots here can verify if masks alone in the cockpit would keep you able enough at that altitude, or if there is a seperate pressurization circuit for the cockpit?) then the aircraft flew along known air routes, then apparently dropped down down to 5000 ft. An flew or still had power for 7 hours. Some one knew exactly what they were doing, there is strong evidence that active deception took place. With all these "facts" it is very hard to attribute it to a nav failure, fire, catastrophic failure or pilot suicide. Criminal action is most likely hypothesis based on these known facts. The most difficult thing to establish is pausible motive for a theft. Having spoken in depth about the issue to an active commercial airline captian who currently flies 777s he reckons the most likely place you could land in that region is Burma, plenty of airfields big enough and apparently bugger all to nudda atc contact when flying in their airspace. Of course once the plane is delivered, it can be refueled and flown to where ever it was intended to go. But the elephant in the room remains why.

i reckon the p-3s with its sensor suite is more appropriate. very very fishy story. someone on that plane had ulterior motives.... on flight path just at ATC changeover then the transponder gets switched off, nearly turns back on its own bearing and drops altitude... i wouldnt be surprised if its on a strip somewhere. or maybe an Ethiopian Airlines type scenario, hijackers demand some bullshit destination, but i doubt the later as who ever did this knew what they were doing.

Hmm, looking at history, the Mig-25 did fair the "best" out of the Russian aircraft in the gulf war. In fact it seems to have been the only aircraft to get an air to air kill during the conflict. And they only got shot down when trying to engage WVR. Certainly the RuAF seems to place great value in the mig31, despite the expense a large number are still operational. It would be really interesting to find out what really happened during the Iran Iraq war, would probably have been the fairest comparison of western and soviet aircraft possible, Infact the iranians wild have been at a disadvantage given much of their talent would have been purged and spares and support was all but eliminated. Really, the mig31 still operating in large numbers probably shows that it retained an edge over even the f-15 which quite simply seems not to have the weapons or avionics to meet it on equal terms BVR, quite possibly the raptor/120D combination may have prompted the Russians to look at a modernization, likely in concert with the USA developments in hypersonic engines.

Yeah I did start it, it's best to copy the campaign into the user mission folder I Found. But you can change the folder from read only if you Want to permanently change the original mission. I can't cOnfirm but i think if you leave it in the original folder it wil revert to the original mission if you update the version. Changing the airframe is obviously not difficult but like eluded to if you want to add jtac, it seems there is no AI logic, and all targets must be manually inputted into the trigger script. This was the point where i ran out of motivation. Remember you can play with any of the official missions on the editor. Doing the Shore campaign but in the SU-25T in a SEAD role is definately interesting, especially if you try and run past the Osas trying to get to the Grumbles.

When the USAF got their hands on a mig21 (I think it was from Syria via the Israelis) they found that it was a much better dog fighter than thought, and that it was a fair match to the f4. Victories were generally decided by pilot skill and experiance. Hence once the yanks started teaching ACM indepth they started getting favorable loss ratios in Vietnam. Anyway for the record I would give my left nut for an electric rat (sky hawk). I would buy a flogger regardless.

You had me going for the first eight words I admit. Checking twice a day update is clearly affecting my mind....:music_whistling:

Thats pretty backwards logic right there. The a-10 was specifically designed to fly low and slow using terrain masking. A 300/300 profile was the basis for a HIGH intensity conventional conflict in Europe. Last I checked radars (with a couple of exceptions) cant see behind terrain or over the horizon, nor can lasers be employed out side of LOS, hence the a-10 would come into its own. Also erroneous is that the a-10 is t survivable in the modern battle field, IAD has improved yes, but so has ECM, other counter measures and SEAD tactics and munitions. In fact the most likely scenario for a conventional war involving the US is the Korean peninsular/ east or south china sea. Frankly I think one starting would invariably lead to the other flashing. Firstly is whether this would lead to a sustained ground war, which arguably it would not, but if it did, CAS would be fundamental to success. The PLA has immature tactics and technology but massive human and material resources. Hence the a-10 would be both survivable and fill a vital niche. Frankly I think the US administration is done with COIN deployments for a while, and will look towards "black" rather than "green" solutions. Africa is a case in point. Not withstanding naval diplomacy of course. To be honest I don't think it would be a bad thing if army aviation took over the fleet. We had our rotary wing assets transfered from the RAAF to the Army in the late 80's and despite some teething problems it is working very well now. Never under estimate the negative impact inter service pissing contests can have on effectiveness.

i have been looking into this for a while too, my toshiba P750, although good for a laptop 2.5 years ago is definitely showing its age. I was looking at spending up to two grand on a "beast" desktop, since getting something halfway decent that was portable would have cost 2.5k anyway, a third of this cost would have been the GPU's alone. i decided to put this off for a while though, among other reasons; that many people seem to be waiting on upgrading until EDGE is somewhat of a known quantity. I dont have a great deal of knowledge regarding hardware, but I could confidently tell you that nothing you have there is really sufficient for 1.2.7. the consensus seems that running intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs are the easiest way to get the best results with DCS. As an interim solution, if you are only playing A-10C, you could consider obtaining the original stand alone 1.1.1.1 (which i am fairly sure the download is still on ED's archive). I know my now antiquated system still runs the standalone reasonably well even on high settings, where as DCS:World is getting gradually slower with each version.

how has no one mentioned the a-10's "reverse thrust"?

there was news around christmas that yes, they are still active, but things are going very slowly, and they are not saying which aircraft they will develop after having problems with the trainer they were going to do. fair to say its unlikely they would do something as complex as the f-14, at least first up.

from a vague and uncertain memory, aren't there certain situations when you do want to land with the wind? sure looks like he spudded in.

is anyone else having download bandwidth problems? I know we are at the end of the line down here in Aus, but I am only 5-9 kbs. i normally get 400-500kbs when running the auto updater. and no im not on dial up.

F-111C please. will never happen but hey one can dream.

errr i was being facetious. Anyway sounds like an interesting book, about egos and career advancement coming first, certainly sounds familiar to me. It seems the higher you go up the hierarchy the rarer integrity becomes as a commodity. The military in general has become way too politicised. One of the public examples that we had, when we upgraded our leopard 1s to the Abrams, we were offered as a part of the purchase a couple o regiments worth of Bradley's at well below their normal value, instead the department spent about 3 times the money on upgrading our m113 fleet to this bullshit pipe dream standard. They are now all moth balled because the protection and armament is completely deficient. But hey, they kept the unions happy by doing it at home.

It's not just a matter of which aircraft has better performance, it's also based on technical risk. If you want a conspiracy theory, there was talk that the f-22 was selected because Northrop already had the b-2 contract. If that's true it's as much a strategic decision as it is a political one. If you read between the lines, most of the USAF hierarchy at the time of the ATF would have seen combat in Vietnam and in hind sight would have placed great value in better ability in air combat manouvering. JSF was no where near as close, the x-35 was clearly more technically mature. One airframe that could undergo supersonic and vertical flight without taking stuff off the airframe. Got it's air to air refueling cert, the boeing airframe in the x-32 wasn't even the final proposal. More interesting about the JSF, that has been discussed of late is that in an order of about 3000 airframes what ever with numerous international stake holders, the whole design has been compromised with the marine corps capability for VSTOL (which now it looks like the RN will adopt too). I think there is a lot of credit to that, since the b varient caused many many delays and weight problems, and in the interest of a "common airframe" these modifications carried over to the other varients.

^ i reckon that fellow who landed an A320 in the hudson might disagree with you on that one :D

Yeah bird strike, if it happen early enough you can abort the takeoff, if have just lifted, keep your airspeed in check, jettison stores if required, circuit and land. Happened to me the other day when I was doing the runner from a fulcrum. It sounds like you actually stalled the wing, the hog dOesnt have the thrust to "barrel" you over if you loose an engine. On that look forward to dealing with some decent asymmetric thrust on the f-15 when the afm comes out.

Learn the HOTAS properly from the start. Once you can take off land fly a course etc, get up to a bit of altitude and give the airframe a good bashing, learn what you can and can't do to old girl, with various payloads. Oh and before you start yanking the stick around, famil yourself with the emergency procedures checklist, so you know what to do when you rip a wing off, or get a flame out.

the states will weigh in very heavily on any NATO decision to supply munitions to Brazil, if for nothing else than the military cooperation between China and Brazil at the moment (ie setting up China's Fleet air arm) the last thing the yanks want is for the chinese to gain access to something like Meteor. MDBA stands to gain more from selling the rights to the yanks if they chose to integrate it with the f-35 than selling a few hundred units to the Brazilians i would speculate. you get what you pay for, i recall reading that the Swedish government where worried about the vulnerablility of the first generation of Gripens. the fact the Finns have stuck with the hornet i reckon adds some credibilty to this. If the Brazilians get the upgraded variant which of coarse will raise the price tag, this may change?

*sigh* quote box 2: the post in question seemed to unambiguously describe a stationary hover. like i said i havent seen our guys do it, but i have seen many times other forces do it. besides i am led to believe that a stationary chopper will not show up on radar, since the most likely and most dangerous threat to the chopper is that of EN aircraft. and we could be anywhere on the FEBA... quote box 3: yes and many of the parameters i described that needed to be met had nothing to do with making the shot, they were more concerns with doing so compromising the task, and cover from his wingman. or did you miss that bit? quote box 4: yes people certainly do make errors, and at under 500m, in my 9 years of service, with experienced soldiers, you are generally talking about increments of +-25m being in that window of error. big problem at 400m with something like a 40mm gold top, not really a problem at 300m with a 2m tall target with a "66". next... quote box 5: firing at an angle actually flattens the trajectory, at least that is how it works with small arms, i see no reason why the rules of physics would change for a heavier slower projectile, which would actually make the issue of range estimation LESS PERTINENT. Besides, the old "picture a football field" in front of you is only one aid to judging distance, there are many others too... and frankly, if there is that greater difference in elevation and shooting upwards, vegetation would most likely obscure the shot. quote box 6: yes i will tell you that it is taught to aim for specific weak points of the tank, not the center of seen mass, and i will also tell you with enough practice soldiers do attain that level of proficiency. I couldn't give a rats ar*e what you think with your clearly vast experience of using hand held anti armor weapons. quote box 7: im surprised that it surprises you that TRAINED soldiers could actually attain that level of accuracy. yes, on static ranges, ranges are known, but they are generally not revealed to the firers. it can be a safety issue though, it depends on how risk averse the OIC is on letting firers judge the distance. on a field firing range, for example; fire control orders are issued by the "team leader", "generally" the most experienced and competent team member, who will state the range the firer is to set. and certainly with something like a DELIBERATE shot, a small amount of time and consideration would go into getting the range right. like i said, using a silhouette on a stadiametric sight is only one aid to judging distances, and you are near literally trying to hit the side of barn, which at 300m is not that greater range at all. motion is relevant to aspect too, so many pros and cons of different combinations for one to have a brain spin about... in fact, bugger it, next time I am at the WTSS and my mate is running it, ill get him to set up the scenario and get back to you. :D

the tone of my response to maturin was in kind. firstly lets nail down the original scenario, a helicopter hovering doing what ever its doing presents an opportunity target. two assumptions; if its hovering, its stationary, or near stationary. opportunity target: it doesnt know of my presence, and its within the effective range of weapons that I have at my disposal, and there is no terrain or vegetation obscuring the shot. another consideration is whether shooting it would compromise my task. yes there are alot of parameters to be met here, the point was it can be done. Firstly camouflage is relevant, as maturin asserted that a helo would never enter a hover that close to boots on the ground (i'm not a grunt anymore, so won't feed the god complex by refering to all boots on the ground as infantry). yes TI makes it harder to remain concealed but is not the be all and end all. as I'm sure you are aware, people can be right on top of you before they see you, littlelone with all of senses that are restricted by a cockpit. I'm not an avo so im not sure of what considerations they go through before entering a hover over the battlespace. ive never seen our blokes do it (probably for this very reason) but i have certainly seen footage from other NATO forces do it. Secondly: gunnery with anti armor weapons. judging distances: is something that is drummed into ALL CORPS from day dot. in my trade it is crucial; range finding binos aren't always available, and being able to accurately estimate and convey the range is inherit to our job. if a helo is entering a low hover, it wouldn't just be an object in the sky, the rotor wash for example provides a "fixed" point on the ground to reference off. it doest need to be exact either, your target is two meters in height and you are firing at the centre of seem mass, as suppose to aiming for a particular point as you would if firing at a AFV. so far as the chopper moving slightly, im sure that if you are a current or former user of anti armor weapons, that "leading" is taught for moving targets. Ranges: how long has it been since the US used the M72? maybe your NG still uses it? our variant is the M72A6, and I will state its tab data that we go off is beyond the ranges that you have quoted. I will not give exact figures (although i am sure someone else has published it on the net somewhere). Accuracy: the M72, or "66" as it is ordinarily refered to is popular for the very reason that it is an "accurate" "lightweight" DFSW (those words are all in the intro lesson for the description of the weapon). when i first qualified on the weapon i scored three out of three hits at a stationary centurion tank at 300m. certainly my experience as an instructor has yeilded that first time firers will score for the most part at least 2 out of 3 hits (this is after WTSS time obviously, kind of like a massive Xbox game with deactivated weapons). as people go through the training continuum the accuracy generally gets better. accuracy obviously goes down when you start talking about snap shots taken during live field fire exercises. the scenario implicitly states a deliberate shot... honestly the hardest part of training people to use it now is that it is one of the few weapons that still uses "iron" sights. few people are exposed to fire arms before they enter the military here. still it is taught generally in conjunction with the MAG58 which is also taught without optic sights. the carl gustav "84" (MDFSW) is slightly different. most pers on their qualifying shoot will score maybe one out 3 hits. this is due to a number of reasons, firstly the amount of PPE you have to friggin wear at the range when firing the weapon, makes it hard to even get a steady sight picture. secondly is the sheer unpleasantness from firing it. if the no.2 has a cold, his nasal sinuses will have been evacuated from the concussion of the weapon. another problem is the m3 sight has 4 different range scales on two different range drums. in the "heat of the first firing" people frequently use the wrong scale, despite constant beration leading up to and on the firing point from the instructors. however in the hands of a more experienced user, it is very very accurate, especially with the new HEAT RAP (FFV551) ammo that is now fielded, which has a very flat trajectory out to even it max range against stationary targets. the last time i saw it fired ( i didnt fire it because i was a safety supivisor, but hence got a great view because everyone else is behind cover during firing) about 25% of users (mostly guys who have been around for a while) were scoring 100% with this type of ammunition near the limits of its effective range on a 6ft by 6ft target, this was on a day where there where gusts up to 10 kts, and this was well beyond the theoretical range we are discussing here. using something like the 441B or the 502 round is obviously different because they have the trajectory of a bag of cement. still accurate out to their respective ranges though. both weapons are now all arms corps weapons, but the 84 was long taught as a dedicated anti armor team weapon, and in my trade it still is, hence a lot more time is spent teaching the tactical employment of it, including estimating ranges by using the reticle in the sight as another aide to judging distance, estimate vehicle speed, aspect, and which corresponding points of aim to use on the reticle of the optics. I cannot relate to the "AT4" since i have never used it, but my understanding is that it essentially uses a munition based on the old "84" heat round, which we did employ on stationary targets beyond 300m. So, i will restate my original assertion, that is, if i had too, I (or certain members of my team) could with confidence hit a stationary helo hovering above the deck at 300m. and if it gets hit by an 84 round or even a 66, its only going one way...

the hind armor from memory is rated to 23mm, at least in the crew compartment (assuppose to the cargo). still, if you are backed into a corner like that, a good burst from even a mag58 (if you are able to get it onto a stable firing platform at the likely high elevation) into the rotor hub should take his mind off breakfast. still i never had an actual hind pop on me in training. never ceases to amaze me the resources you guys get. but i take your point. at basic training, I shared a room with a catering corps dude, who was a bit of a strange chap at the best of times. when someone asked him why he joined the army, his response was because he wanted (no joke) "to jump out of planes and kill cu***" it was pointed out to him that maybe he didnt join the best corps for his ambitions. and you never see gucci battle rigs quite like what medics and bandies sport (we often buy our own gear) with pounches hanging off eachother everywhere.

Sorry champ, but you Obviously know nothing about individual camouflage and concealment, nor do you know the accuracy that can be attained with the 66 little lone the 84. My main concern would not be about the enemy spotting me, or even scoring a hit. But the launch signature and if the fu**** had adequate cover from his wingman.

hmmm, depends what you have. if you've got something that can cause them a world of hurt.... helo hovering almost stationary on the deck; 84mm HEAT or even and m72 would make for a really really bad day for them. on the a-10 in game, is it just me, or is dodging a r-73 impossible at the moment?