Vampyre

I never saw a tank build up of any sort in 2003. We went with our original complement of assets and received no spares even though aerial opposition was expected... it might be an Air Force thing because I know they stock war reserve tanks built specifically for dropping. These war reserve tanks are far less expensive than normal tanks because they do not contain a lot of the baffling and valves a standard tank contains.

Substantially correct except the engine was the -402 and it was physically the same size as the -400. The EPE just had improved parts which allowed for the better performance. Most pilots I have spoken with prefer the legacy Hornets over the Super Hornets for dogfighting as well, for the simple reason that they retain their energy better due to having cleaner aerodynamics.

Well, Switzerland is not the best country to use for comparison with other operators especially where drop tank use is concerned as it is only about 220 miles east/west and 140 miles north/south. Their bases being located within that area means the entire country is within the Hornets range without drop tanks. The defensive nature of the Swiss operations also helps with their view of dropping the tanks as, if it comes to them dropping the tank to fight, this means an enemy aircraft is engaging them within their airspace. They are not an expeditionary force that has to perform sustained operations over many years that includes daily use of their airframes so this affects their view on the expenditure of assets.

I don't really care about the reasoning... I'm just happy to have the module. A good pilot will find a way to be successful and that is the fun part for me. I'll probably get shot down a lot in the F-5E at first and that's ok while I am still learning from the experience. In most modern combat aircraft the aircraft does most of the work for you. That is not the case with the F-5E, you have be smart in its employment. MiG-21's, Su-27's, MiG-29's, F-15's... the opponent does not matter. Get in, hit the target and get out and if one of those other jets want to tangle then we'll dance. I care more about mission completion, solid tactical decision making and learning the airframe/systems operation than how my score stacks up in death match server so most of the arguments against this jet seem kind of silly to me. To each their own though. If you don't want a simple DCS ASM/EFM tactical fighter don't get it, it's that simple.

Spain does not use the F/A-18C... only EF-18A and F/A-18A+ Hornets. I'm looking forward to seeing what I can accomplish with this austere version of the F-5E. It's going to be good fun.:thumbup:

The centerline mounting can be used on the AV-8B(NA) post 2007 ish. Evidently it was tested at VX-9 while I was there but all I remember were the F/A-18C/D's doing the Litening testing. Heres a pic of a VMA-214 bird carrying one centerline. EDIT: The other pod is the ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger pod

Personally, I am excited at the possibility to get a DCS Tu-22M-3 as are several others I fly with. I like the direction you are going to get there too. The only hang up I have right now that prevents me from donating is the fact that ED has not signed off on the development yet. Until that happens I cannot justify throwing funds at a project that has a very real possibility of being stillborn from the get go. If I were wealthy this would not be a problem but alas, I am not. I am heartened you have decided to stay the course for now and I wish you luck on the trip to Ukraine and Russia.

The person requesting the information is.

This, as described, is a comparative test in a specific area of the flight envelope which in and of itself is not indicative of overall turn performance of the Corsair. From what you have related we do not know altitude and airspeeds the tests were conducted at. All we do know is that the aircraft were pulling 3g's and exceeding their critical angle of attack (which will activate the stall strip on the Corsair).

It's not official but RAZBAM have indicated a desire to do the Jag.

What Hasler is referring to is a stall strip on the leading edge of the starboard wing that was installed to help nullify the vicious wing drop from low speed stalls. The strip initiates flow separation at the leading edge of the starboard wing just outboard of the guns/cannons so both wings will stall at roughly the same time vice the port wing first causing the aircraft to flip over. As to it destroying the Corsairs turning ability, that just didn't happen because at the speed the strip takes effect the port wing would be stalling anyway causing a departure if the strip was not installed. The stall strip did make the plane safer to fly low and slow with. I'm not sure of his sources for the statement. The strip is located just outboard of the two 20mm cannons in this pic of a F4U-5NL. The Corsair is a great all around fighter for both turning and energy fighting in the air to air arena plus it could carry truly amazing loads of bombs and rockets which is why it was kept in production until 1953.

That's what it looked like in the movie too...

57th FW, 422nd TES is a weapons test unit. I'd be more inclined to believe the -9X was in regular squadron use if there was a picture of a combat coded squadron F-15E flying with it.

It was being worked on. This is the ACIMD, one of two inert shapes built for the project. It was designed in China Lake... the same place that designed the Sidewinder. It is one of three different designs for a Phoenix replacement. The other two designs never made it off the drawing board. These missiles would have eventually been known as the AIM-152A had the cold war not ended. I first saw this missile shape when I was stationed at China Lake... I used to volunteer at the Armament Museum on the weekends which usually involved servicing tires and moving jets around. They have some really interesting subjects there.

Same here... 1986.

Mi-24P Hind F Second runner up is the F2G Corsair.

My suspicion is that they are variants of the CATM-120C. They may be a mix of CATM-120C, C-5 or C-7's... possibly D's as well. I don't really know enough about the different subtypes yet to make an informed judgement but the one on top definitely has a shorter, blunter radome, and slightly lengthened airframe than the others and I have seen CATM's with those features referred to as 120C's before.

Sounds like a great idea for an up and coming studio. There is a definite want for more eastern aircraft in DCS right now and the State Aviation Museum of Ukraine has some very interesting subjects. My eye is specifically on the MiG-27K, MiG-25RBT, MiG-23BN and MiG-23ML. The MiG-17F and MiG-21PFM would be good for a Vietnam scenario (and Arab-Israeli wars) and there has been some interest in the Su-15TM to oppose the LNS Viggen. For many of the Middle Eastern/Persian Gulf wars the Su-7BM and Su-17M had a lot of involvement and there is a want for transports like the An-26 and AN-2. Anyway, good luck with your trip and I am really looking forward to having the Troika as a flyable in DCS.

That is just an F-15C with FAST packs and extra missile rails. It has already been released so it looks like you are on the hook for four copies. Here's the link to get you started- http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/f-15c_dcs_world/ :music_whistling:

Evidently, yes.:thumbup: Personally, I would have been copying and pasting a long time ago.

If you build it they will come Prowler. I voted yes because it is an unusual type that has seen service in war. It's a true COIN bird and is in use in a number of different countries. If anyone were to do a Falklands war map it would be one of the required fixed wing types along with the Mirage III, A-4, SHAR and Harrier GR3. I would personally rather see an OV-10 Bronco more but I would fly the Pucara until the Bronco gets here.

Only problem with the AC-130 is that, at about almost $200 million for an AC-130U, it's flyaway cost is almost as much if not more than an F-35 and it is a lot more vulnerable than an A-10. That and there are so few of them, less than 50 airframes of all versions combined, that the ones we do have are overtasked as it is supporting JSOC, you know their parent command. ... and before someone says Apache, the AH-64's are also more expensive than the A-10 in both flyaway and operational costs even with inflation factored in. AH-64's are also vulnerable to the same air defenses as the A-10 and more (think rifle caliber and RPG's) if they fly a NOE profile. The only major attack carried out by Apaches in Iraq 2003 ended rather poorly for them. Until a suitable replacement is designed, the A-10 is still a needed asset here and now.

Sounds like a classic case of not turning on pitot heaters. You had ice in your pitots which caused your airspeed to read 0kts when fully developed. once returning to lower altitude (with warmer air) the ice melted and your readings returned.

Got my copy too. :thumbup:

It doesn't matter because both platforms are needed. There is a lot of back and forth about the Air Force retiring the A-10 in favor of the F-35. The A-10 has capabilities that the F-35 cannot match and the F-35 has capabilities the A-10 cannot match. Trying to make one aircraft do the others job is not the best decision. The F-35 will be a great F-117 and F-16 replacement for the Air Force. To replace the A-10 something else is needed, something with loiter, combat persistence, overpowering punch, physical survivability, slow speed maneuvering capability and fiscal sustainability. Those are the A-10's strengths and are weaknesses of the F-35. Even with it's lack of stealth and other advanced technologies in the face of an integrated IADS the A-10 can still be effective where it was originally intended to operate on a modern battlefield, the FEBA. If we are fighting a near peer war correctly the first thing to go will be the enemy IADS. A weakened or non existent IADS (think Persian Gulf War 1991, 2003 or Afghanistan) allows the A-10 to be highly effective at all ground attack missions (CAS, BAI, Strike, COIN, CSAR Escort) for a lot less cost than an F-35 will provide. Right now Russia and China are the focus but we will still be fighting religious zealots for the foreseeable future as well and to continue running our expensive top end fighters airframe lives out to fight a man in a cave with an AK-47, as we have been doing for the past 15 years, is a losing proposition. This will be exacerbated if the A-10 is retired with no comparable replacement and the F-35 is forced to perform the roles of the A-10.