exhausted

null

it would be air to air training with simulated missiles that track and hit, but do no damage

ED would need to focus on the fact that it's part of an expeditionary system, and is not related to the job or doctrine of the Apache at all. The Cobra would be marketed as flying from sea and land. A few awesome missions flying from the carrier and a good campaign would really turn the -W or -Z into a gem, since it really could be at home at literally any theater we have or will have. Im fact if ED brought it out with a UH-1Y and the upcoming C-130, they could sell it as an "expeditionary pack," occasionally including the Hornet and Harrier.

This is a great idea, and in my opinion should come before the F-15E. The -D in conjunction with LAU-10 white phos, can really be used for AFAC and interdiction. You can sort of try it with the F/A-18C at the moment, but having someone to operate the flir pod would really expand the job.

null

It wasn't meant to be rude by saying "we already know you can set your keys up by yourself," and I'm certainly not sure why this equates to being entitled and demanding. My only concern is making sure people understand the question is about the guide, not about building your own binds. Out of deference and appreciation to Chuck's guides, I'm still waiting patiently to try the F1 until the 'experts' settle on HOTAS profile.

Totally agree. I believe they received a wiring upgrade and had limited anti corrosion measures made, in addition to the refueling probe.

I would fly the AH-1Z, even if it had a derringer in 22 short in the chin

This docu says the CF-5A was adopted for special use on NATO's flanks, like Norway and Turkey instead of Central Europe. Well, that fits well with the existing Turkey maps and the upcoming Norway map!

Does that really matter in cyber space? Right now our option is to put an RAF roundel on an Apache and fly it off a ship. A proper Cobra would scratch that itch a lot better.

This conclusion is probably flawed, as it ultimately comes down to unit training and mission priorities. Nobody is saying the Apache HAS to stay still, we are saying the Army wants it to stay still; nobody is saying the Cobra CAN'T stay still, we are saying the Marines want them moving for a variety of reasons. Manuals do not tell the whole story; people use experience to make adaptations, and the Marines made adaptations to their Cobra doctrine the Army has not in its Apache doctrine. "Taking what we know about those RF SAM systems, you could imagine that aircraft operating below ~150ft or so would be relatively safe from most of those systems. " But Hammer from Above has the Cobras flying between 300-600 ft, in the parts I have read.

I misquoted the title, but I edited and acknowledged

In Hammer From Above (formerly Hammer from the Sky, back when I was wrong), the Cobra pilots talk about moving around despite the perceived SAM threat. It's literally in USMC doctrine not to slow down in a threat environment.

Because his Wifi won't connect. USB tethering is an option for some phones.

Actually it's not about doctrine of era, it's about integrating service doctrine into the airframe. The Apache -D is designed to pogo around from behind trees. The Cobra is designed to keep moving around fast.

I agree with the call for the F-16A. Block 10, Block 15... why not both? Oh, and please include parachute housings this time (if they apply)!

Can you USB tether your phone for internet? But yeah, I get your concerns - it's a pretty bad copy protect system.

This aircraft, or combinations thereof, was used by more countries than the current F-5E. Along the the F-104, the F-5 was in plentiful supply with many NATO and allied air forces during the Cold War. The F-5A would make a great addition because it was designed to carry out many missions and lots of documentation exists. The Early F-5s should come as a package, since the basic F-5A lacks refueling capability yet the CF-5As have this feature. Additionally, this cheap, expendable aircraft would be quite at home in the upcoming Kola Peninsula map, the Syria map and the Nellis map. I look forward to buzzing around in this aircraft, doing things the current F-5E doesn't do, like air to air refueling. Plus, pretty wingtip tanks!

The Cobra can be seaborn and the Apache really is just an army toy. Either the W or Z would be an instabuy, but I'd get bored bobbing over trees which is why I avoided the Apache. All in all, the Cobra and the Apache are nothing alike, and their use doctrines are totally different. You will rarely see Cobras below 100 kts in a combat zone, whereas you see Apaches just sitting still, lobbing missiles away. Yes, give me the Cobra because I'm yawning at the Apache.

I heard the IJN had slight ramps at the stern of their carriers for this. They kept the wires too, except for the Army's fleet of carriers.

both are or russian origin?

It's not good, it's great. Lots of really good targeting and bombing equipment, if you don't mind being up close.

I think we've been covering a lot. We talked about idling, we talked about cockpit noises, and now we're beginning to focus on the sound at high thrust levels. I hinted that it doesn't really whine at high power levels. It absolutely rumbles. Even though the original post caught some of the rumbling, but those samples were pretty poor (I referred to them as resembling point and shoot mics from early-2000s). The video in the original post also depicted cockpit noises and the low power sounds rather badly. So in terms of those, I think it's safe to say Razbam is objectively closer than that video example. That being said, there objectively should be more "rumble" and less "wine" at higher power levels. I think the 'bones' of the sound are there, but the rumble should be boosted and the whine should be nearly removed.

It depends on what they were attacking. The Marines got very good at manually aiming their bombs at mortar-tube sized targets. I don't think the Air Force ever benefitted from such high accuracy until they -Ds got lasers.

Umm, yes please