Vampyre

July 18 2006 The Third World War, August 1985: a Future History by Hackett, John John Hackett http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0722141858?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00

The F/A-18 is limited by range though, and its lo-lo-lo profile is abysmal. Its hi-hi-hi profile isn't anything to write home about either. The A-6 and A-7 were far better strike assets than the Hornet in this regard. The Navy took a huge risk going with the Hornet. Short range means its base, id est the aircraft carrier, has to operate closer to enemy offensive assets for its aircraft to be able to hit important targets within the battle space. This means the modern carrier is more vulnerable than a carrier was in the mid 80's when conducting strike operations. The tradeoff for cost savings is higher risk to the aircraft carrier itself. As many different missions as the Hornet can do, it cannot do anything from Davy Jonses locker. That is what the Navy actually did when they divested the A-6, A-7 and F-14 from the fleet.

Engineering Manufacturing Development. Technical name for a prototype.

Same here

The only problem with that idea is that the YF-23 is essentially a new design which, according to the article, is not what the Air Force wants to do.

I'm not talking one for one replacement. The whole reason this is an issue is because the leadership sees a new cold war brewing. 300 machines to replace existing airframes will not cover all of the contingencies. We need interceptors, battlefield air superiority and long range strike aircraft all of which we have low numbers of with the existing aircraft. Improved versions of the F-22 would be ideal for those mission sets.

I still hold out hope for an improved OV-10G+ as the current one has more going for it than a Super Tuc... seven weapons stations, cargo/paradrop capability, twin engines and it is a 100% US design which will, legally, make it easier to get into service.

I, like a lot of other people I know, said it was a mistake when I first heard they were going to cut production to 339 machines... and then they cut it again to 187. :doh: They should have purchased the full 750 examples in the original contract plus however many more congress would have forced upon them to keep production lines open after the order was fulfilled. Lets get our monies worth this time and get 750+ multirole F-22 aircraft and replace all of the F-15's including the Strike Eagles with them.

Air conditioning.

That is exactly what it is. If it stays the same color with the same antenna configuration it will be a GR1... or should I say colour. Be nice to have a vanilla PA-200 as well to simulate the Luftwaffe, Marineflliger and Aeronautica Militare examples as well.

My money is on them being the two Combat Dragon II OV-10G+'s that were the subject of several articles back in 2013... and yes a DCS:OV-10 Bronco needs to be a thing.:thumbup:

An A and a D+ would be great!:thumbup:

You're my hero. Exactly the answer I was hoping for.:thumbup:

Externally, the quickest way to tell a B from a D is the chin mounted sensors. An F-14B has a single TCS installed and the D has both the TCS and an IRST mounted side by side. The F-14A's had several different chin mounted sensors back in the 70's and 80's but only had the single TCS for the last half of their service lives. The engines, F110-GE-400's, are identical on both the B and D. The F-14A is the Tomcat with the different exhaust nozzles for the TF30-P-414A engines. F-14B TCS F-14D TCS/IRST F-14A TF30-P414A Engine exhaust nozzle F-14B and F-14D F110-GE-400 engine exhaust nozzles

The holidays when on cruise seem to bring out interesting marking adjustments.

I have a bunch of personal pics of both that bird and the pencil from workups and the 2005-06 cruise. Also have pics of VF-213's "white" bird, Lion 200 and 201. I'm partial to the 1985 VF-142 markings. The first Tomcat model I built as a kid was in those markings. And the TPS is OK too Of course, being a former Vampire (albeit after the Tomcats were gone), I have a want for the VX-9 markings as well. I remember seeing 164604 at NADEP NORIS in 1998 while I was stationed there with VS-41.

Looks like a MiG-23MS Flogger E most likely acquired from Egypt after the Camp David peace agreement and the switch to western centric weapons acquisition. Nice find.:thumbup: **EDIT** The "wood" on the wing is actually exfoliation corrosion. This airplane is in terrible shape structurally not just from all the holes in it but also from the highly advanced state of corrosion on the aircraft.

More likely than not they were former East German launchers that the US Navy used for testing anti ship missile defenses.

The DDI's (what you call MFD's) on the F/A-18C are not color capable at all so I assume you are being facetious. The MPCD, on aircraft so equipped, in the middle behind the stick and below both the UFC and HUD control panel is though. A late model/modified F-16 is more the equivalent of the Super Hornet than the Legacy Hornet so the comparison of accessories and furnishings between the two is not really a fair comparison. As far as the targeting pods are concerned, in US service only the Marines use the AAQ-28 Litening on their Legacy Hornets and not when operating off the boat (probably because they have to carry them on station five and catapult grease would be all over the front of the pod when they launched). The AAS-38A Nighthawk pod has not been used for many years but they were fairly common on legacy Hornets from 1993 up until the mid 2000's. The Navy only uses the ASQ-228 ATFLIR on both Legacy Hornets and Super Hornets now. The year they choose to model the Hornet in will decide whether we get Litening/ATFLIR or TFLIR. If an F-16 is to be done I would prefer to see Block 25 or below aircraft in addition to a late model Block 50/52 CCIP jet. I wouldn't mind seeing a F-16A ADF either but I would still rather have any aircraft other than an F-16 modeled... like I said before, it's a bit overdone and I would rather see platforms that have rarely or never been the subject of simulation. Maybe they should just do a F-16N for use in the aggressor role as a compliment to the F-5E/MiG-28... or better yet, a TF-16N. Need to do a trainer first to build experience.:thumbup:

I still want my DCS:Zeppelin :thumbup:

View it in full screen. The plane is only really identifiable for a few seconds. Its definitely a Su-34 Fullback. Identifying features are the wide front fuselage, canards, widely separated engines and long tail boom. Su-34 Su-24M

Looks like a Su-34 to me.

They do indeed use Litening.

I'll agree that it is not required for the content that is currently in the game and I understand that a lot of people are happy with it the way it is. But... The problem is that larger maps will be a requirement when ED attempts to expand to the civil flight sim market and include large strategic airlifters and strategic bombers that people want included as flyable modules. If the maps stay the same size as the current Caucuses map we cannot even simulate Desert Storm with any sort of fidelity as the vast majority of the bases the coalition used will be outside of the map boundaries. For the civil side, the current map sizes are great for simulating the flights of short hop turboprop or regional jet airliners but that is not everyone's cup of tea, so to speak. Having an aircraft like the C-5B, 747 or A-380 on a map the size of the Caucuses would be like trying to put a Blue Whale into a goldfish bowl. I see the issue of the current map sizes as a restriction on the growth potential of DCS which will limit its ability to become the "true sandbox simulation" that ED has stated they want it to be. Link to ED's vision of what DCS is: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89885

And, in addition to that, the fact that the Mudhen uses both Lantirn and Sniper pods, neither of which are currently modeled in the sim, will push the module release to more than two years away. Thanks for the honest assessment Prowler. The AV-8B(NA) will be a great module and I look forward to your entire Harrier II line.