Maior

regarding exercises, you can always check my post on how to conduct a proper discussion of aerial warfare. The link I posted has a whole section on exercises and their point. It's exactly how GG is describing them but they provide some supporting documents. You should read it Kaktus29. You'd enjoy it.

Dude, let's leave politics out of it. I like Bossa Nova and I'll be damned if I won't listen to it :)

Escort for Helos? Screw that! CAS missions on a low budget-effective warfare scenario. If I had the money, I'd buy one for myself. Damn sleek sexy plane. They must be fun to fly as well... In game, we should have an ARMA like option to listen to music. Flying this plane basking in the sun while listening to some Bossa Nova would be awesome. Cotidiano from Chico Buarque springs to mind.

Many thanks :) more reading material. I'll send my boss the links :p

Well, one simple point not addressed would be that, even if this student were to be right, even if the missile doesn't hit and score a kill, it's still better to face an enemy WVR that is busy trying to dodge a missile than one that is stable and ready for you. That's what would probably happen if one side has BVR missiles and the other only relies on WVR.

That wasn't their only problem. From what I gathered, the English had more sensors in the operational area giving them better SA. Also, it was the bombing of the runway in the islands that forced the Argentinians back to the mainland making their situation worse. Not that the runway was very effective though. They also withdrew their aircraft carrier After the sinking of the Belgrano. So, they lost two very important assets that could increase mission time and sortie rate. They also rerouted the Mirage 3 to protect Buenos Aires from the Vulcan.

Quite right of course. However, most of what you mention adds to the force multipliers I mentioned. The ability of the Harriers to perform more missions than the Etendards and Mirages of the Argentinians was due to them. Ship's radars were essential as basically, they could direct the few Harriers where they could cause most damage. The Argentinians had to resort to the aircraft sensors which meant that many sorties would be patrols over wide areas diluting their force. The British could almost always achieve number superiority thanks to that. Situational Awareness is the cause of British success. It just proves that asset integration is just so big a force multiplier... The Harriers were in numerical inferiority and against Mirage III and Daggers were outclassed in a 1on1 basis since both of the other models could fly higher, faster and carry a bigger payload iirc. It was asset integration which tipped the scales. This war also makes me think the kind of capability the RN carrier fleet will gain once the F-35 enters service. It'll increase many fold the force projection ability of the RN that's for sure.

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/falklands.html Falklands war. Another bit from the 80s. :) This bit clearly shows the importance of force multipliers. The british had less fighters who were also less capable than the Argentinian mirage. They did inflict serious casualties and managed to defend the fleet. They were able to generate more sorties per plane than the Argentinians. Good stuff.

lazy wikipedia search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tucano#Specifications_.28EMB_314.29 yeah... a "bit" more firepower... Where were you going with that?

Well, how soon can we have a DCS Super Tucano? :D

Only this crop duster is an astonishing machine. It's all a matter of cost. For most jobs such as counter insurgency, drug war or even, war against a small nation, this plane is perfect. An A-10 costs $3,000 per flight hour, an F-16 costs $7,000, an F/A-18 Shornet $18,000 and a F-15E. $44,000! A super Tucano costs $1,000 per flight hour. How can you match that? and if you have air superiority, there's no increased risk of it being shot down. It lowers the cost of operations considerably. And the bloody plane is just soooo good... And smart too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifUZ6_E5QD4 Interesting documentary on the planning of the 1st Gulf War aerial offensive. worth the watch. They do give Sadam's air defences a bit too much credit judging by newer info available. Still, it's probably why the mission was so successful. They prepared for something they didn't had to face. On another note, how do you add youtube vids? the posting option doesn't seem to work...

So, unless Russia and the US go to war, no missile exists that can take awacs out and, none of those missiles have silence lock. That was my point :) I had a feeling you'd like it invader zim. ^^

Yeah, not the best choice of words. Sue me :D See if the change is more satisfactory for your grammar taste buds ^^ EDIT: regarding AWAC killing missiles, Which nation has missiles that can cover 250 Km+? Not to mention passive lock that doesn't set alarm bells off in every platform in the near vicinity. Also, why would you leave your expensive AWAC all alone outside? Someone could scratch it's painting you know?

It appears I jumped the proverbial bullet. My apologuies for that. It's just that this discussion seems to go around in circles every once in a while. Still, really overdid it. Sometimes I'm a bit of a drama queen :D GGTharos said all that is needed to be said. Again, sorry about the burst mate.

Greetings. Having just read this very interesting thread on a forum I attend, I asked if I could indicate you lot in it's general direction. This is a thread created by defence professionals to properly instruct people on how to properly discuss air capabilities and, it clearly shows that "my platform penis is bigger than your platform penis" arguments are pretty useless. Discussion needs to be centred in the whole asset integration. It's not by chance that the biggest game changer to the USN capabilities is not the JSF but the CEC program which will integrate all assets in a fleet in a way never achieved before. The F-35 will be one asset of that network coupled with other aircraft, naval assets, land assets and, space assets. As the ensuing thread mentions, no matter how good the RADAR in an Su-35/F-22/F-35/F-15 is, the AWAC's are bigger. Very, very, very long, dense posts however, it just sucks you in (well, it did... not sure how to finish this sentence now without a fellatio innuendo). Hope you enjoy it. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/air-power-101-new-members-12457/

Really? Do tell your expertise on the subject. I'd be delighted to know the years you spent developing aerial platforms and the battery of tests you ran to counter these arguments. Especially, since most of them relate not on a specific platform but on how modern air forces plan their acquisitions and what is important in a modern scenario. It's fun to see people thinking they know more than USAF, RAF, IAF, RAAF, to name a few, boffin. I'm sure they're all wrong and you're right. Again, I say again, don't use performance to attack this particular asset.

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/FvsFiction%20Final%2024Mar1.pdf Interesting article about the F-35. Fact vs fiction. Very nice presentation.

It doesn't, check my note at the end. I also believe the T-50 will come online before 2030 however, the fact that the Russian thinkers are developing plans to field a large enough fighter force without the T-50 till 2030 is some sort of worst case scenario. This is my personal opinion and is merely a way to try and extrapolate the state of the T-50 since, like Invader Zim said, it's very hard to do. The most important bit on my post was the doubling of the Su-35 production. That, I believe, is really a sign that things are not going so smooth for the T-50. Well, the engine and RADAR troubles are public knowledge so my guess is there. well, the US is different. They want to replace all major combat assets by the F-22 / F-35 combo. Sure, they'll keep some Eagles and Growlers for duties where stealth is not required like AWAC defence but, the pre-sequester idea, was to have all combat operations conducted by LO platforms. I still think that's the idea though with the economy going south, I don't know how long it'll keep. Again, the idea was to have fifth gen frames replacing conventional ones. The operating costs of the JSF are still to be verified however, they're supposed to be lower than legacy assets. Then again, the JSF was also supposed to be cheaper so :D Well, the way the F-35 is made, modifications are easy. So far, every evidence points to the contrary. The F-22s on the other hand are tough to upgrade. I don't know enough on the T-50 to comment on these subjects but modularity is probably a major concern in the design. Yes, I believe the Operational requirements mention Mach 1.6. The Engines they're using are probably going to be fitted on the first models and being Mach 1.2 able, is not really an improvement over 4.5 gen assets. I hope the new engines and RADARS are up and about faster than that. Hopefully with the new Silicon valley and the higher number of young people, Russian tech might improve steadily. Even though I don't think Russia faces any real danger of invasion by the US mid term because well, MAD, I do agree that the T-50 will be an important asset asserting Russia's sphere of influence in the region (half the globe more or less ^^). And it is in the defence of that space that Russian planners are thinking. I left this quote to the end and this time, I'll let it slide ^^ Seriously, don't get me started on WWII or else you risk a two hours read discussing this issue. Let me just say that the Soviet army was "weak" due to incompetent leadership and the way they addressed their problems. In fact Stalin thought hitler was a madman since he had more to win on the Soviet trade agreements than he ever could through war. Also, had the Germans attacked an year early or, an year late, the outcome would be completely different. I'll not say anything else on this subject to prevent severe cases of death through boredom (unless you're cool discussing artillery design in the Soviet Union during the pre-war years).

They're making fleet wide upgrades to both Su and MiG airframes, created two 4+ gen aircraft currently both on order AND the Su-35 orders were doubled so now, it's 40 MiG-35 and 90 Su-35. These plans are intended to keep the VVS up till 2030. That should give an idea of how long till the T-50 is ready to perform. Note: It'll probably be before 2030 however, the fact that the Russian wigs are thinking on a 2030 timeline is indicative that things are not as smooth as Putin wants us to believe they are. Also, the JSF project achieved the milestones the T-50 has so far in 2008 or 2009 so, you can expect the T-50 to be operational 4 or 5 years after the JSF. Addendum: To be fair, MiG orders were to boost MiG funding and stimulate production for foreign interested parties. Plus, they'll be deployed without AESA so it's more of a bailout kind of order not an important part of the defence network. Which is odd since the naval version (MiG-29K) is already being produced for the Indian and Russian navies with the Chinese wanting in on the deal.

lol. Yeah if putins says so :D Anyway, The Russians are still having trouble with engines and RADAR so it's not like the project won't have cost over-runs. Their way of developing aircraft does provide some safeguard against major slippages as they evolve the existing airframes rather than scratch build them. Not everyone can afford the US way of making war ^^. Their defence budget is 10X smaller than the US so, compromises have to be made. Still, quite interesting to see what these new planes will be capable of and if countries wouldn't just be better off buying Super-Tucanos instead (unless they're planning WWIII) ^^

FYI, Here's an interesting article I picked up from another forum: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf

Regarding your losses, one M1 doesn't seem too bad. You have to know that you'll always take losses. Impossible not to have. The discussion here was more on how to give you a fighting chance not to prevent any losses. So far, the AI does seem to have issues in manoeuvring smartly. You can take that to your advantage. I don't want to go into what should be changed or not since, from what I can tell, ED has a couple of years work to try and make DCS a believable ground warfare sim. But for now, use terrain, and integrate your assets as best as you can. Use forces like IFVs, infantry and artillery to pin down enemy units and Assemble IFVs and tanks as your striking arm. Manoeuvre, manoeuvre, manoeuvre and then, some more manoeuvre. Time your attacks right so that you can always engage with local superiority and, once you attack, no hesitation. If you hesitate, you screw up timings, attacks become disjointed and more losses on your side. It is better to have an unimaginative general who just pushes forward then a genius who reacts to everything loosing his cohesion and diluting his attack punch. Take the example of Blücher. Not a great tactician but, once he attacked, he'd hold on to his attack like a pitbull to a bone. He ended up defeating Napoleon THE master of manoeuvre. Napoleon was hesitant, Blücher was not.

BTW, that "leaked memo" which no reputable news source has yet to cover that way, refers to the Block 1A aircraft which has no EODAS, practically only Navigation avionics, limited helmet mounted sighting system, in general, no combat capability. Their experience is completely different than that of the pilots and chiefs of staff who are flying Block 2A now. Here's the memo: http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf It's simply another case of bashers of this project cherry picking information from somewhere without bothering to read the whole thing through, failing to understand the information or just resorting to any means necessary to try and sell papers. Even though I like RT news for some of their content, their "military cover" is rather bleak.

Is there nowhere to go in order to shorten the distance using terrain as cover? At least to 3Km or so. That would give you a fighting chance. I don't know what other assets you have in the area. If you manage to keep the T-80s busy with poor targets (like having IFVs throwing tows at them) and then move your tanks nearer in a pincer move, you might catch those T-80s off guard. Your gun is better than theirs and your armour too. If you have a couple of Apaches you should use them.