Scrim

Can't have been much for him to do. It looks like a lot of bombs have already been dropped in that picture, so the other B-17 must've drifted beneath it during the drop. AFAIK there was no stopping the bombs when you pressed the button.

During the development of Gripen, they had to bring in Calspan to work out the mess they'd made of the FCS which caused the two first prototypes to crash when the test pilot lost all control of the plane.

I don't quite see the need to base Gripens in places in Switzerland where STOL is required, considering the size of the country. The only thing the Gripen's STOL ability is good for is controlled crash landings, and the hilariously disillusioned concept of highway bases. No, I'm regarding software I'm talking about things from before the Gripen was even finished. If it hadn't been for American software, that plane would've been crashing relatively often to this day. Buying a whole new fleet of fighter jets to get to vote on maybe getting ARMs? That doesn't sound like a smart move. If Swedish made ARMs turn out to be lacking, they'd be in a pickle. Swedish arms manufacturers are generally quite good at what they do, but if they mess something up, they're still very likely to make the deal, as Swedish domestic politics force the Swedish military to buy Swedish weapons, regardless of their quality. The only things they don't have to buy domestically are things that are simply too expensive to develop in country. I don't follow. Why would the Swiss have to buy more F/A-18s than Gripens to replace their F-5s? The issue I'm pointing out regarding American export restrictions is that if they rely on the Gripen, they rely on a third nation to keep good relations with the US. Regardless of their own healthy relationship, they'd still end up with hopelessly outdated Gripens if American-Swedish relations take a turn for the worse, in which case they'd have to pay up a whole lot more for American companies to take on and modernize their Gripens, like how Israeli and American companies have upgraded WP weapons for countries around the world. NATO compatibility is bad in the sense that the Swiss would be forced to rely on American-Swedish relations to ensure that Swiss Gripens wouldn't become obsolete due to a lack of upgrades. As for the Gripen's tactical link being superior, no one else than SAAB says that, so I'll chalk that up along with McDonnell Douglas saying that the F/A-18 was superior to the F-22/F-35 (can't remember which one it was) as far as credibility goes.

Regarding costs, the purchase isn't everything I had in mind. The short take off is hardly a big virtue. That exists due to the reality detached Swedish Cold War concept of basing every single fighter on highways with scant maintenance facilities. The software is to a considerable part developed by American companies, and the later models are to a considerable degree about being NATO compatible, and thus relying on the biggest NATO member for the software and hardware required to make it NATO compatible. Cruise missiles don't make a plane SEAD capable any more than bombs and a cannon. If it had, no one would've bothered developing ARMs. And besides, buying a new set of A fighter jets to replace older B ones when you already have a third, C, that are capable of anything the A planes might do and more, is definitely a bad economic decision, regardless of how much the A jets cost to have.

The day the Americans for political reasons decide to block exports of military technology that is used for Gripen, it's dead in the water in terms of even trying to compete with other Western fighters. Also, last time I checked, the Gripen couldn't even be armed for SEAD missions. That's a pretty big flaw right there.

From all that I've read, the Switz F/A-18s are capable of AG, and have been included in such an upgrade with targeting pods since a few years back. It might seem like buying something very expensive for your needs, but buying a whole new fleet of aircraft just to cover the AG aspect that the existing, superior jets can do just fine.

Indeed, but it's not a matter of picking the cheapest thing you can get without buying Eastern European jets either. The Gripen's single virtue over any of its Western competition is its price tag. That is what was in mind when designing it.

So they can buy more F/A-18s then. The Gripen is the result of half a dozen decades of Swedish national and international lies about neutrality and the ability to rely solely on domestic weapons.

You have no idea what you're talking about. What is failing in Afghanistan is a restrictive strategy made up by politicians, not the modern technology.

Good. You get what you pay for. Being cheap about it doesn't help. What's wrong with their F/A-18s?

Yes Falcon, an F-117 was shot down during Allied Force. I think that has been established by all parties.

Aye, never ever trust Wiki. I came damn near close to risking my history grades over using it as a source. Before and when I wrote my final, biggie history essay, good ol' Wikipedia was adamant that there had only been two (2) wars ever fought between democracies, and as such, I concluded in my great essay, that global, world wide democracy was the answer to eternal peace. Needless to say, when I checked the same article a few weeks later, it had skyrocketed into over a hundred wars fought between democracies listed in the Wikipedia article alone :P

Scratch the part about deciphering NATO codes. Until there's a non-Serbian source verifying it, I think it's safe to call BS of the highest degree on that part. Re stealth during Allied Force: Only once, with stealth broken, when flying directly above a SAM battery, with absolutely no SEAD/DEAD or jamming efforts, could an old stealth design be detected and engaged. Most of the circumstances that made it possible were the direct result of NATO planning that night, or rather the lack of it.

Yeah, suppose so. Other Teen jets don't eject their empty shell casings either, do they?

Never realized just how huge that cannon is. Or the part about how they have to keep the empty shell casings aboard as they serve as ballast :D

Not to mention that one's airforce is rather pathetic to say the least if it is a common practice to paint training "kills" on planes like other airforces do for actual kills in actual combat. Here's a picture of the bridge that it very much appears I'm in the process of selling you:

If you think anyone with any resemblance of a sound mind will believe anything out of a YT channel called "PowerRossiya", then I am glad to announce that I have a prominent landmark in London, a very famous bridge, for sale to you exclusively. If you buy it, it will be airlifted to your residence by flying unicorns.

It's amazing how much some people can embarrass themselves on subjects like these. I agree, this is pretty much a the circus of the forum ever since the faux F-15C module thread disappeared.

Because according to the laws of bias, any given concept and/or invention is useless until possessed by whom/whatever the critic roots for.

Familiar with the concept of "Beta"? I can't complain about the reticle being slightly outside the glass, I mean seriously, don't we remember for just how long the pilot's rocket sight on the Huey was nothing short of a red HUD bullseye? As for the rest, no offense, but it really does seem like nitpicking, considering that BST makes no secret of the fact that the Mi-8 is still far from complete.

The 109 I believe. As for the chart, I think it's wingspan of different planes, for the gunsight.

In the War of Attrition campaign I get away with it due to a lack of ARMs (in this one I tend to get it because I chose SAM batteries under attack, so I won't have to bother too much with luring them into range), but in Eldorado Canyon, 20 seconds is way more than called for before there's a HARM incoming. Btw, is it just me, or is it pretty much impossible to actually hit something when firing a T/T solution at a jamming target?

If you disregard that troublesome factor called "facts", yes. But if we take the "fact" factor into account, the reply will more likely go along the lines of: :megalol: I mean, it's not like stealth planes were first built pretty much solely to be invisible to SAMs, which happen to use ground based radars. It's also not like that stealth planes only once in world history have actually been spotted and shot down with the help of a ground based radar, right?

Damn this is fun. Only thing I wish for is that we get some scenarios where the SAMs didn't pretty much lose. Only time I've ever managed to down enemy planes is in Eldorado Canyon and the War of Attrition, but I always get knocked out only a few seconds later. It really helps you understand how paralyzed SAM systems are if there aren't any friendly fighters up to stop enemy planes from wreaking havoc on everything related to a radar with jamming and HARMs. No wonder the biggest threat to planes is still AAA, MANPADs and optically guided SAMs.

I don't understand how that'd work, but I'm guessing that's because I don't understand the problem to start with. I mean, when I switch weapons with my DMS button (guessing you meant that instead of China Hat?) I get two Mavericks if I'm carryng both D and H variants.