Scrim

I've got the Warthog stick, but if I can find a -21 stick, that'd be great. I still remember how great it felt the first time I started DCS A-10C with the matching stick and throttle. There's nothing quite like it.

Not the biggest or most interesting question I suppose, but what's up with the American military's seeming obsession of calling pilots "drivers"?

Cheers for the info! I don't suppose it's possible to buy such a stick for a PC anywhere?

I've looked on Google, but been unable to find anything, and I reckon someone here knows it: How does the Mig-21 stick look (buttons, switches all around it) and what do the different buttons and such do?

The Huey and the Mi-8 are two different products, and whilst I have myself voiced disappointment at the lack of finished lightning systems in the Huey, saying that it is unusable due to this is taking it too far. All the cockpit lights in the Huey are functional, albeit together, and why would you need to have different levels of light at different parts in the cockpit? But most importantly, the Mi-8 is very much still in Beta. The people who do systems aren't at all necessarily those involved in making e.g. the Sabre. The Beta status isn't an excuse for that particular lack; A Beta product doesn't require excuses for missing details.

Get down from your ivory tower already. When we pledged money, one of the things they promised us was weekly updates. How about I sell you something and complain about you "yapping" when it is I who obviously don't live up to my part of the bargain?

Sigh, it even says Beta in the title. It's not a bug, it's simply not implemented yet. Reckon everything that isn't implemented in a Beta is a bug all of a sudden?

I'm asking for at least an update every other week, regardless of what's been accomplished. Why? Because it was clearly stated in the Kickstarter that there'd be one update every week. When we get updates, I feel I know things are coming along. But now, it's more like "well, it'll sure be neat if we get anything out of this project".

Nein nein nein, das ist verboten!

My crystalball tells me they'll be doing the AH-1 next, because that's what they've actually announced.

If I want to do a running takeoff, obviously no. If not, I use the brake.

They are?

Well, as I've said, actual embargoes I don't see coming, just the same old usual dirty tricks which could potentially mess things up a bit one day is the Gripen comes into direct competition with American jets. The Eurofighter and Rafale are different. They're not as cheap as the Gripen, and thus less popular in comparison to American jets. And more importantly, they both come from NATO members, whereas Sweden stands outside NATO.

If a Swedish company were to strike a deal whereby they include e.g. ITAR regulated components, they would sign up for the risk of severe repercussions should they break that law. I don't know exactly how they'd deal with it, maybe freeze bank accounts of the responsible people, pressure the Swedish government into doing something to prevent the sale, etc. But what is certain is that that company would not be allowed access to any American militarily related technology ever again, and it would face the wrath of the Swedish government, as they'd cause a massive American distrust towards the entire Swedish arms industry. I looked it up, and it was some sort of maritime search plane that had American avionics and engine parts regulated by ITAR. That Spanish company lost a $500US million dollar deal, and it was because they were directly answering to American authorities as well as Spanish since they had agreed to it in order to be allowed those components. They asked for permission to sell the planes, but didn't get it.

IIRC that was the case, but only for a few select planes. One plane aimed, and everyone else flew in formation with that plane, and dropped their bombs when he did. Technically speaking, if everyone had aimed at the same spot, the concept of carpet bombing wouldn't have applied. Not to mention that having potentially 1,000 B-17s all maneuvering independently, flown by bombardiers with no notion of where any other planes are could only end extremely badly, on a large scale.

Ooooooh, there's an F-86 subforum!

A few years back, a Spanish company made a considerable multi million dollar loss when the US government refused a sale of a helicopter or plane to Venezuela IIRC, citing the fact that ITAR regulated some hardware I believe that was in the airframe. When they were allowed to include that in the first place, they placed their product under not only Spanish but also American "jurisdiction" so to speak. Venezuela in turn, in their never ending "USA-trolling" even tried to sell F-16s to Iran in '06, which was for somewhat obvious reasons stopped by ITAR. It would definitely make a mess out of exporting Gripen to literally speaking any Western country, since even those that are not part of NATO are very keen to cooperate extensively with NATO as we all know. At best, Swedish sales would be incredibly hurt, because even if the customers still buy Gripens, they will only do so if: A, There is a large decrease in the purchase price and likely other economical bones in it. B, If the US decides that instead of pressuring Gripen customers into buying American, they will go in and fix the missing parts, features, etc. for the Gripens for the customers after they've bought them, effectively giving every single Gripen country apart from the country that developed them modern Gripens. Imagine how Israeli and American companies have upgraded Migs, T-72s, etc. with Western technology. The Gripen would of course in such a situation be better suited for those upgrades, since it's designed to accommodate them to start with. But that is rather unlikely, as it would mean that Gripen survives, though Sweden makes enormous losses selling them. I suppose they might do it if the Gripen customers are adamant, and to keep Sweden from drifting a bit Eastwards. At least that's my 2 cents worth of amateur geopolitics ;) The issue regarding this that I did a poor job at pointing out is that as Switzerland would rely on American-Swedish politics, there would be a risk of a less modern Gripen as times go on, not because there are Iran sized embargoes looming over Sweden, but because the US government has been well known to push Gripen out of the market, as the low price tag means it can compete to a certain, uncomfortable degree with American fighter jets. Other Western fighters do it too, but not with the same low prices, and they also come from NATO members. It's not at all hard to imagine an American company backing out of a Gripen upgrade deal one day if the Gripen is in direct competition with American jets in any Western country or one of many 3rd world nations.

Was that post directed at you, or anything you had said? No. Don't complain about aaron supposedly taking your statements out of context when you unabashedly do so yourself.

Maybe try not ignoring something next time, before getting up on a high chair and saying I ignored something? It's simple. If an American company owns the patent, it's regulated by their laws. Yes brydling, after years of being unable to fly the Gripen as they had constructed an FCS that was a larger danger to the plane and its pilot than anything on this Earth, and after going to an American corporation to figure out what they had done wrong. And as I said, that's just one part that is difficult to say was developed domestically. Now, I've had enough of this thread. EthereaIN, I'll try to respond to your latest post. Though we disagree, I can't help but admit that you do have some valid points, and informative.

ITAR for example (there are plenty of other regulations and laws dictating these things) applies to all military technology. It doesn't matter if the government, military, etc. has ever even considered purchasing it. And as I said, several other laws dictate these matters. If you think that American companies are free to get involved in military projects with other nations, then you are incredibly mistaken.

If TL;DR is going to be the way you respond to answers, I'll go ahead and follow suit: Takes Too Long to Explain; Won't Bother. TLE;WB. No, not from a legal point of view, but from a more practical point of view I suppose.

You really have no idea how export restrictions work, do you? The American government is obviously 100% allowed to put restrictions on what different companies export. The notion that they couldn't is ridiculous, and such laws would hardly be of much value, as most of the military technology that is developed in the US isn't developed by the government. No, just no. The somewhat considerable importance of a vital part of your avionics not crashing your plane is a very large part.

Bulls. You don't seem to know what you're even on about. As aaron886 pointed out, there's about a decade and a half separating the F-16 and Gripen. The F-16 and F/A-18 were some of the American jets they studied when they looked at foreign aircraft during the research phase. The moment they had to go to an American corporation (a corporation, they didn't consult a simulator) to keep the FCS from killing their planes like a crazed software serial killer, they lost the right to call it solely Swedish. And seriously, the Americans aren't allowed to restrict anything else than the sale of military hardware? Just on what planet do you live?

Yeah, that's just not the case. Calspan ain't a simulator, nor was a simulator the only thing they helped out with. SAAB had botched the FCS to the extent where they could not fix it without going abroad for help. And if your FCS can't be relied on to not crash your plane without help from an outside party, you just can't claim it's your own software any longer.

It's a large corporation dating back to WW2. Seriously? The Patria almost lost when a court ordered the purchasing process to be redone because Hägglund sued on the grounds that the Patria was better than their because it exceeded the standards set by the Swedish military, and that their vehicle should've been purchased because though of much lower quality, it lived up to the standards and was somewhat cheaper. And if Patria hadn't been from Finland, a country Swedish politicians want to cooperative with, you can bet your behind it wouldn't have been given a chance by the court. As for the submarines and surface ships: Read what it is you respond to. Who says they're too expensive to develop domestically? They have to be somewhat suited to national requirements, which rather rules out American hunter-killer submarines from countries that build them for operating mainly in the Atlantic. The same goes for surface vessels. Not to mention, politics. Any idea how many people are employed because that's kept in country?