exhausted

what will these modes be for?

Any map with coastline would be great if we had a carrierborne Phantom coming instead, which would largely take care of that problem.

nullVMFA-323null and VFMA-542 in Vietnam Some awesome footage of -542 doing its job

Wouldn't hold your breath even though a lot of us aren't interested in the F-4E bombtruck version of the fighter. If the Marine and Navy version ever comes, it would be a miracle but it would be its own module. Once the -E is released people will probably exhaust their interest in national guard scenarios and I would imagine the B/J/N/S will likely fall to the wayside.

They should probably have more voice tracks recorded for different accents, languages, genders and voice types.

How is this correct if you requested it be fixed?

Priorities, right? Thank god we got the TF-51D!

Really hoping this bug gets resolved.

The tan Phantom is an AWESOME scheme

I too would buy it. This version of the MiG-29 has been widely exported and modified. No reason why a MiG-29B could not also arise. Interesting photos show Syrian MiG-29s using ECM pods under the wings. Also, the MiG-29 is my main bird in pvp dogfights.

Quite possibly, just like the possible C-124 Globemaster II module.

Terminator HK tank and Flying HK?

Thank you, we are super excited to hear this! I cannot wait to try it out.

Not sure if his mod will match your attempt at wit. His criticism is welcome and informative.

The landing gear do not seem to interact with the ski ramp, as it does in every other module I've tested. Contrast to an aircraft with truly delicate landing gear, the F-5E (relevant until 0:40):

Pay no mind to people ignoring your question and telling you to make your own. Start with Chuck's Guide and fill the holes as you see fit https://chucksguides.com/aircraft/dcs/av-8b/

How dare you tell the truth! Well, if Russia claims Crimea, and I claim Russia, then Crimea is mine and I personally give ED permission to render it.

CH-53 > chinook

Agree. I'm ignoring the latest round as it is obvious that no matter how people respond it will only degenerate further. Best wishes and apologies. Bad mix of views and personalities, I guess. I'm not going to point fingers or try to steer blame, since as much as I hoped for a less aggressive and more focused discussion, it takes two to tango and I participated in this hairy mess. Cheers, happy new years and best wishes for 2023.

Thank you for your continued interest but not everyone has the time to meet every requirement you set, just because you set them. I'm trying to handle questions, but you have to work with the flow of the conversation. This is where we are, if you need help keeping up.

You would probably need to take a gander through materials that get into the history of a few squadrons to get an idea of how they operated within the structure of the Marine Corps and the Navy. For example, were their methods officially sanctioned or did they need to improvised, and if so, then what were they trying to achieve in that moment? My instinct would be, from reading Olds and hearing Steve Ritchie, is there was a key divergence where the Air Force was forced to compensate where its bureaucracy proved unresponsive (for which pilots risked serious punishment). You can hear how, on one hand, the Air Force's bureaucracy made squadron commanders resort to remediation training with the Aussies, Navy and Marines - in theater. But, on the other hand, they intervened when training was improving and the result was the combat squadrons continued to be underprepared. This is what I believe drove the design of the F-4E; the aircraft is compensating for doctrinal inadequacies and is overall worse off for it. And the story continues, that since the Air Force was turning the page on TAC by introducing the F-15 and F-16, they continued to weigh the F-4E down without regard for its abilities as a fighter. The story of the -J and -S are not plagued with compensating for, what was effectively bad training, and they exploited the airframe's strengths as an effective fighter under their training and operational doctrines.

The exact number of Israel's aerial victories in air to air combat is disputed, as are Iran's. Even more so than US victories, which is why I favor doing an apples to apples comparison of the F-4E and the F-4J in US service. It makes sense, since the Marine Corps and the Navy both did a lot of air to ground, which is IIRC where you said the Air Force focused with the F-4E. Then comparing the two during the timeframe they were both actively used in air to air combat is also a fair way to compare. If you really want to get granular, then you may want to compare the exact number of each type available in theater at the peak of their victories, to get a victory to airframe ratio. Then you can look at the number of airframes actually serviceable during that time. You could also look at the number of airframes versus total completed sorties. All these would figure into a more complete picture and the results would probably be surprising all around.

Advocating is not totalitarianism. Have you not seen the effort to marginalize and erase my viewpoint? If I can deal with that then surely a pack of people who only want to see things their way can deal with an opinion they don't like without the attacks. I can deal with the attacks, it's just outside the purview of our discussion. I don't know what type of resolution you seek, but silencing others' opinions is probably not realistic.

Thank you, but this is getting very far off topic. I wish you the best.

The market has a voice. I'm in the market, so I have a voice. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but that's how the marketplace of goods and ideas works. Obviously, bullying and trying to overwhelm ideas and opinions hasn't had the effect people wanted. You don't need to list sources for everything - in fact sources have only come up 1-2 times in this thread, and they really haven't been persuasive: the reason is most of the sources are such common knowledge that the utility of listing them is quite low. For the most part, I've read the listed secondary sources and have even seen the primary sources used in them have been seriously questioned in the historical community. Anyway, it's just an idea.