Vampyre

The MiG-21Bis is going to be a blast. I'd also like to see the MiG-21PF and MF in the sights of my highly desired F-14... if we ever get it.

True that. What's the point of worrying about something one has no control over. I have enough stress at work. While I'd love to try my hand at the MiG-21, if it is not released, oh well... there is always something else coming down the pipe.

Close... An antiskid system measures the speed of both main wheels and seeks to keep them spinning at the same speed. It will automatically apply brake pressure to the faster wheel to equalize the rotation with the slower wheel.

Jomar, if you are using windows go to your start menu, find the Eagle Dynamics folder then open it. Inside should be a DCS World folder, open it. there should be a icon that reads "Update DCS World". Click it and it should start updating. If that doesn't work, this is the default file path to the updater: "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\bin\DCS_updater.exe" update Hope this helps.

I've known a number of female pilots but they all drove real airplanes... F-14',s F/A-18's, and EA-6B's. Oh, and the ladies aren't the only ones you get funny looks from when you leave the house with a TIR reflector on your head...:doh:

Yes! This is what is needed. The ability to transport needed supplies to differing bases across the map. I'm talking planes, trains, trucks and ships as well, you know stuff that can be destroyed to prevent their arrival to where they are needed. A sort of logistical game inside DCS. There are many things that have to be fixed with the current DCS for this to be useful but hopefully sometime after the implementation of EDGE this can become a reality. It could be a draw for the commercial bus drivers from FSX to come fly DCS. Can anyone say DCS C-5B Galaxy? Imagine all the troops that could be carried by a DCS 747-400.

I'd like to see all of the F4U variants. The Corsair has always been my favorite WWII bird. I also like the Mosquito FB mk VI, B-26 Marauder, Hs-129 and Me-410.

Now, as I understand it, the Nevada map will be able to be expanded upon in the future. Is this a correct statement? NTTR is fine but I would also like to have northern Nevada and California included as well to include the Navy and Marine Corp and Army bases and training ranges as well (China Lake, NAS Fallon, Twentynine Palms, Ft Irwin, Edwards AFB). Basically, all of the R-2508 MOA, MCAGTC and the FRTC.

Fantasy... OK, I'll bite. I'd like to see an AST-21 http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm As for aircraft that actually flew The F-111D/F F-105G Wild Weasel III and F-105D T-stick II F-4G Wild Weasel V MiG-27K Flogger J2 MiG-25BM Foxbat F MC-130H Combat Talon II CV-22B Osprey and an A-10B

Actually someone just said the concept was similar. The more I think about it the more I think it might be possible to penetrate a BTR's hull with a minigun. Real world, 7.62x51 147 grain M-80 ball ammunition will leave a small divot in 1045 plate steel from closer ranges. I own several AR-10 rifles and I've done that myself with home made 1/2" and 1/4" plate steel targets. After about 500 rounds I usually have to replace the targets. That is just basic ball ammunition, not the specialized armor piercing or tracer rounds. Now if a minigun were to be in a position to direct concentrated fire on a specific small area of a BTR, it may be possible to punch through the thinner armor of the rear and sides... Of course it depends on what is underneath the area of armor you chose to punch through that determines if the vehicle will be destroyed or not. I doubt it will be possible from a moving helicopter without computer aided sights. This is all just theoretical on my part... I wish I had a minigun and about 10k rounds of ammunition to test this theory out. Of course, if I were going to get that close with a minigun I'd just shoot a tire or two to get a fire going and cause the crew to abandon the vehicle. There is a higher probability of a kill that way. As for the game, you are correct in that I doubt 10 rounds of 7.62 will do anything to a BTR.

Similar to this BB gun: Normally a BB wouldn't penetrate a TV... just leave a mark on the screen if anything.

I wish my Christmas tree looked like that! Here's a couple of pic's I took from the last Tomcat cruise on the TR in 05-06.

The carrier is the current top tier capital ship in the world today and has been the top target of any foe we have since World War II or likely will face for the next 70 years. A Carrier Task Force, Surface Action Group and Amphibious Task Force are highly flexible tool's we use to project force and respond to crises when and where needed. All great powers have one thing in common, they dominate the sea, regulate trade across it, and project power from it. The reason countries develop, build and maintain them is to assert dominance on their neighbors. Today the world ships about 8 billion tons of cargo (Oil, Bulk, and Dry Cargo) a year. That figure is projected to increase to about 23 billion tons by 2060. That means more, larger merchant ships plying the waves which, in time of war, will be sitting ducks without armed escorts. You cannot move Heavy Divisions without the use of these vessels. Airliners can put all the troops on the ground you want but without the heavy equipment needed to win they are just a bunch of guys with M-16's and whatever ammo they can carry. Wars are won and lost by logistics, not the latest whiz bang gadgets. Gadgets are how battles are won and lost. We have all the whiz bang gadgets and, I speculate, a few you don't know about. Warships will always be needed as long as we use the sea as our primary means of logistics. No matter how inconvenient it is for the drone argument, drones are only evolutionary. They are still only airplanes and that revolution happened in the early 20th century. A true revolution will involve something more profound than an airplane that can fly for a long time. Think Orbital bombardment with directed energy or kinetic weapons. The true revolutionary game changer will be in earth's orbit. Ask yourself what the X-37 has been doing in space for the past year... It's fun to speculate huh? You will not see operational drones of the type you envision in regular service for at least another 20 years minimum... and it will be the US that has them first. The plan to make drones the primary force against all comers is foolhardy. Drones are not invulnerable. They are susceptible to all forms of attack that all other aircraft are susceptible to plus they are highly susceptible to electronic attack and the base operating stations can be targeted and destroyed. They have inherent weaknesses as well as the strengths your argument is based on. Afghanistan: I was there in 2001 and have done many OEF deployments since then. When the word to go was sent, a Navy S-3B Viking was the first aircraft in country (due in a large part to its superior ESM). They were followed by F-14 Tomcats and Air Force Strategic Bombers in that order. There were no nearby bases to operate from. To get tactical aircraft to the fight the Air Force had to fly F-15E's from Al Dahfra UAE, around Iran and through Paki airspace to get to the same AO that we just had to fly through Paki airspace for.. You are either ignorant of that fact or being intentionally misleading for the purpose of your argument. Ok, I feel I'm wasting my time here that could be better spent flying my Huey. After typing this up and re-reading the older posts I have concluded that you have made up your mind and your opinion will not be swayed on this subject regardless of the facts spelled out for you. I'm just glad you don't call the shots for the mightiest armed forces currently on planet earth. As for the Sitting Ducks article... The author is probably just mad that Navy beat Army... Again! 34-7

Yes, Afghanistan is a good example. We used TLAM's launched from ships in the first strike of what was to become OEF and the Navy was the first to provide tactical airpower to support Special Forces and CIA agents in country. More recent examples are Syria, Libya, and relief efforts in Japan. About 90% of the Navy's mission involves peacetime operations that cannot be done by an unmanned craft. A navy is more than just a war fighting organization. All of the technology still needs a concentrated force to be effective. People are still required to maintain drones and bases are needed to service and maintain them. That is the weak point of the drones as well as ships. Directed Energy weapons are the best way to defeat a hypersonic missile and a ship, particularly a nuclear powered ship, would be the best surface platform for these types of weapons. Our technology is only getting better in the area of directed energy weapons. If you were referring to the RIM-161D... that was for ballistic missile defense. That was the case even in the cold war. The proper tactic is to attrite the enemies long range forces to an extent where the environment becomes permissive to move ships closer. The piracy/drone argument is weak mainly because the ship is a vastly superior platform for investigating and prosecuting suspected piracy. A drone can only look and kill. It can simply take a video clip of the action taking place. It cannot apprehend, interrogate and deliver for prosecution. A ships aircraft are a part of its weapon systems, not independent entities that happen to be launched from it although they are capable of independent action if required. Drones are evolutionary, not revolutionary. The only thing that changed is aircraft now have a longer endurance. Only time will tell if your opinion is correct or not. That's the point. It moves. The drones you are talking of will require fixed bases and lots of infrastructure which provides a perfect target as well. Guess what? Bases can be seen from space too... and they don't move. You are underestimating the timeframe and costs of the drone you want. I'd bump that timeframe to closer to 15 to 20 years for a capable drone aircraft of the type is needed to attack a carrier. I'd also bump the price of your drones up as well if you are talking stealthy supersonic long ranged attack drones. If the B-2 Spirit is any indication, the price of the drone envisioned will be well above what one of those costs. If all that is wanted is a simple stealthy reconnaissance drone it will be a lot cheaper but they will also be killed in larger numbers through both kinetic and directed energy weapons. Which is why we are acquiring the P-8A Poseidon and MQ-4C Triton. 3000 drones will require a minimum of 10 personnel to maintain and operate it...30,000 personnel, plus, the drones are a single purpose force and very inflexible in the overall scheme of things. Still, there is no argument to stop building ships just because they can be seen and maybe sometime in the future the technology will be available for robots to conquer our current fleet. The navy is constantly improving its warships and designing new systems to stay relevant. Imagine this... Drones on ships. We already have them in service and operating from our Destroyers and Cruisers. If I were a less than top tier country with a far more limited budget, I'd choose the cheap rout as well. The US Navy is primarily a blue water Navy and is less effective in enclosed waters such as the Black or Baltic seas. If a war were to start large warships will not enter confined waters until the environment is permissive enough to allow operations with a lower risk. The Med and Oceana are a different story due to the size of the areas. An amphibious landing is the riskiest of military operations. It should only be undertaken in the most opportune of times or when the need is greatest. The simple presence of Marine Amphibious forces in the 1991 Gulf War tied down a large number of Iraqi troops that would have been more useful on the Saudi border. The Marines mission has not changed but its methods have. No longer will you see landing craft going ashore in the traditional amphibious landings. The current method involves the use of fast long ranged troop transport aircraft launched by ship. Think of them as a shock force. They are there to kick the door in and take a key infrastructure such as ports and airfields for follow on forces (such as the Army) to exploit. Seriously? No matter how clever the tactics and strategies are, the transportation of troops and supplies to the battle is of critical importance. Drones cannot do this mission and they cannot protect the convoys of transport ships a major war requires from every threat they face. As long as we continue to transport by ship the requirement for naval ships to escort and enforce maritime freedoms is still there.

Ask yourself this then, How does the Green Machine get to the fight? The answer is by sea. There is no way to build up the force necessary without massive transport ships that require escort from surface, subsurface and airborne threats. Yes, ships can be seen by drones and targeted by aircraft submarines, ships and new ballistic missiles being developed by our potential enemies. The ballistic missile threat is the reason we have such a high priority on the development of the RIM-161D and the upgrade of the SPY-1 system. So, until we create the Star Trek transporter that can move entire Divisions of Army troops in an instant there will be a need for a Navy with ships as its centerpiece. The Navies missions are more than just going "toe to toe" with a similarly powerful foe. When a crisis occurs, The president doesn't ask where the army or the air force is. He asks where the carriers are. Ships are required to perform blockades, maritime security, anti-piracy, humanitarian and a host of other missions. Aircraft do not offer the persistence or utility of a naval task force. Aircraft, particularly drone aircraft offer great potential for surveillance and attack missions in permissive environments and will have a much greater use in the future. As for the article cited, it sounds like the author just has an axe to grind as all of his arguments are based on speculation and quite a few of his "facts" are skewed by omissions of important information.

Oh, darn, how could I have forgotten the A-37B. I think there were a few more that I forgot as well like the An-2, C-141A and C-5A. To be honest, I really want all of the aircraft flyable and multiplayer to work with hundreds of players able to log in and fly simultaneously. I would really just fly a few of the types like the F-105D/F/G, OV-10A, CH-53B/C, C-130A/B/E, F-4B/C/D/E/J, F-111A, and A-6A/B. I like flying against other human pilots due to the fact that you never know what another player is really going to do.

Well, you can't have Thud Ridge without the Thud. The F-105D/F/G is a must have for any map covering North Vietnam. Of course you would have to have the F-4B/C/D/E/J, F-8E/H/J, F-104C, F-102A, EB-66E, A-1E/H/J, A-4E/F, A-7B/C/E, A-6A/B, F-111A, KA-3B, EKA-3B, RA-5C, RF-4C, B-52D/F/G, CH-53B/C/D, MiG-21PF, MiG-17F, and MiG-19P. For the war in the south we would need (in addition to a few of the types previously listed) the O-1E, O-2A, OV-10A, F-100C/D/F, UH-1B/C/D, CH-54A/B, CH-47A, OH-6A, AC-130A, AC-47A, C-130A/B/E, C-7A/B, C-123B/K, NC-123K, AC-119G/K, AH-1G and AP-2H. The map would also have to include more than Just North and south Vietnam but also Cambodia, Laos, Thailand a considerable part of the Gulf of Tonkin and South China Sea as well.

But during the day you just look fruity.

I'd rather have a MH-60S over a UH-60A/L/M. The Sierra is equipped with a FLIR/Laser Designator and is armed with AGM-114, Hydra-70 FFAR's and GAU-19 on the ESSS. Additionally it has the GAU-17, GAU-21 and M-240 door mounted weapons as well. Its missions include Special Forces Infil/exfil, CSAR, SAR, Vertical Replenishment, Sea Control, Mine Warfare and of course the general trash hauling. The Sierra is a true Swiss army knife of a helicopter. The MH-60R is more of a dedicated ASW, ASuW platform but it is also armed with AGM-114's as well as AGM-119's and Mk-46 and Mk-50 torpedo's. The Romeo could do the pinpoint attack mission in a pinch. I'd rather have the Sierra before the Alpha, Lima, or Mike. Just because they are not painted green doesn't mean they are not combat aircraft. It is definitely not a "civilian" helo.

The great thing about the DCS series is that if someone really wants to add an aircraft to the series, they can. I've seen a couple of helicoptors that are being built in the 'how to" section of the forums by fans of those particular machines. If they are able to get those projects included in DCS with ED's blessings then I have extremely high hopes for the DCS WWII series. Mossies and Corsairs and Uhu's, Oh my!:D

I'd prefer to have multiple variants of specific aircraft types so they can be pitted against others from the same time period. I'm a big fan of the Corsair so I really want the F4U-1, F4U-1C, F4U-1D, F4U-2, F4U-4, F4U-4B, F4U-5NL AU-1 and... Im dreaming but I would like to see a F2G for air racing. I'm not sure how feasable it is but one can hope. The Antons were good planes they were just not meant for what the Luftwaffe was using them for in the mid to late war periods. When I fly single engine fighters in Europe I usually gravitate towards the Butcherbird... All versions.

What you don't want the P-38G or H? They were good airplanes too.

Or Georgia... lol. Central Europe would be fun. For DCS WWII, I want all of Europe, the Med and Northern Africa. Oh and the Soloman Islands and Phillippines.

The exchange of ideas is always a good thing. It brings up new possibilities and clarifies the paths to a goal.

It would be a good point if the decision to model the P-47 had not been made already.