Scrim

One could always look on their website.

Well, D is IR, and H is CCD, so you ought to see the difference when you have your MAV screen up.

Not really. Ever since NATO was created, secret agreements between NATO and every Swedish administration until the end of the Cold war at least have stated that in case of war, Sweden will effectively be participating as a member of NATO, regardless of whether the scenario is an attack on Sweden, or NATO and the WP coming to blows. The result has been that the Swedish military currently has gaping holes in its overall TO&E that were ignored because NATO was relied on to fill them for us in case of war. However, lately, especially with the recent decline of relations between Western countries and Russia, the US and NATO have made it abundantly clear that Sweden is on its own in case of war, and should join NATO. Whether or not there are current secret agreements similar to the ones that we now know existed during the Cold war is anyone's guess. Long story short: Our own CiC has officially stated that the Swedish military can't even defend the major cities for a week in case of an invasion. We have modern equipment made useless in a modern war because of unfilled gaps (gigity), and are trying to score freebies in the form of defense pacts with neighboring countries who've repeatedly told us to mind our own business because they're in NATO. And we're sinking large parts of our small defense budget into domestic products that the military is ordered to purchase, regardless of whether or not they can find better and cheaper equivalents abroad, solely to keep up the appearance of an alliance free Sweden that can stand its own ground, which in hindsight has turned out to be a convenient lie told by every Swedish administration since the birth of NATO to conceal the fact that we had secret defense pacts with them.

I wouldn't call a film made by ED rumours. Granted, not an official announcement, but still.

There's been some mention of one from ED not too long ago IIRC, but I can't recall if they said who's making it, or when it's due.

I prefer the bayonet comparison; It's something you should train and equip yourself for as it may happen, but if you start using bayonet attacks as the base concept of general infantry combat, you need to find yourself a time machine and go back a number of decades in time.

I stopped watching on account of blatant historical revisionism by the stage they reached American combat air losses, and outright lies regarding the effectiveness of SAM systems and how they were supposedly impervious to any countermeasures in the Vietnam war. Due to that, I have a hard time believing the producers aimed to record a truthful, unbiased account of stealth technology.

Faith: Well, relatively terrible. The best achieved was on average two Communist planes for every American plane lost in dogfights. If you're going to accuse me of flaming anyone, make sure you're right first. The very last helicopter part of the organised operation was a CH-46 airlifting the Marines from the embassy. The first film you linked to showed something that sure wasn't a Huey, nor was it the last helicopter in the airlift. I doubt it was even the last day. The second is not either the last airlift, nor is it even the American embassy. The last one makes no mention of the last airlift. Mind retracting your accusation?

Well, I did say I'm not an expert. Either way, if we look at the skill statistics of the average Sabre pilot vs. the average Hawk training aircraft pilot, I still think the Sabre will win :P

Might've been, but unless that helo pilot was the best in the world, I don't think we could call his fight with an A-10 a dogfight ;)

The F-86F I'd say. Not an expert on either plane, but the Sabre does have a radar gun sight allowing it to engage the Hawk from a considerably longer distance with accuracy.

This. Played the Baz mission last week, completely lost track of where I was going when I accidentally cycled through a waypoint and was trying to find it again.

There were dogfight gun kills in Desert Storm?

Wasn't the embassy, nor was it the last airlift during Frequent Wind. Also, another Vietnam map thread? Isn't the half dozen we already have enough?

Yet again, I quite clearly stated that it wasn't I who said that VTOL wasn't in the DCS engine. May I suggest reading what you respond to?

Gamer: Yeah, those things totally prove that VTOL is in the DCS engine, don't they? The ability of an airframe to move vertically without horizontal movement does not equal VTOL. Sobek: Perhaps. I don't know why it's not in the engine, I was replying to questions about what Joey had written. Whether or not it's up to 3rd party devs to put such features into DCS I don't know, and I consider it irrelevant at this stage, as I don't believe RAZBAM are actively developing anything for DCS.

It doesn't matter how good a pilot you are, without rudder pedals, it's not gonna be easy doing much rudder control. You'll stay in coordinated flight by default with autorudder? BS. You still have to deal with something considerably more complicated, keeping a level flight in a WW2 prop fighter with slow to react gauges.

A HAWK missile mounted on an F-14? Man, those aerodynamics :D

Won't happen. If that logic was true, I'd like an explanation as to why RRG "only" got $158,897US from 2,553 backers. A reasonable sum to ask for a Harrier module? Let's look at RRG again. If we look at their first goal of $100,000US without taking into account a new map, a number of new features, non flyable aircraft, ground units, ships, etc. they asked for an average of $33,000US for each aircraft they'd make. Considering everything we didn't take into account there, I think we can be generous and say that those things even out the higher complexity of the Harrier compared to WW2 aircraft. Then we have a reasonable sum to ask for in a Kickstarter nailed down to being ~$33,000US, and that's pretty generous.

That the DCS engine doesn't have VTOL. Seriously, that was pretty easy to read in Joey's last post. That may be a reason, but considering how much attention RAZBAM seems to be giving DCS, I doubt it's the only reason.

£150,000 could very well get it finished rather quickly. The problem is that £150,000 is an outrageous sum of money for a DCS module. RRG wanted less than half of that for their entire DCS WW2. Asking for more than twice that for a single module, and Razbam would look even less like a credible 3rd party dev.

Your wit is of world wide fame, how clever it is. Sigh...

It's for people who don't have rudder pedals. Gonna ask everyone on joining if they have pedals?

1, Its speed is not a factor to take into consideration, as it's dependent on other helicopters for finding targets, as has been mentioned. 2, No. No rear rotor isn't much of an improvement in survivability, since very few helicopters in combat are Black Hawk Down'd. And considering how it's co-axial rotors are known to strike each other if the helicopter flies too fast or makes too tough manoeuvres, I don't think it's that much more survivable. 3, Seriously? You think attack helicopters should never leave the safety of flying above areas controlled by friendly ground forces? Yeah, that's gonna make for a great attack helicopter.

If you were to implement certain features in tanks, you could probably get a 1 man tank. You reckon it's a good idea? Its inability to perform at least half of its intended missions (scouting) due to lacks so severe that it needs the helicopter it was designed to replace to find targets for it and make sure it doesn't get shot down by something it's completely unable to see for itself without an absurd amount of maneuvering is hardly made up for by only having to train one pilot per helicopter. If anything, the redeeming virtues it has in that less pilots are lost when it's shot down isn't something that makes it better than other attack helicopters; It is something that makes up for its own flaws to a certain degree. It is a redeeming feature because it lessens a problem caused by its own concept in the first place. Also, it's not lower weight. Despite it's many disadvantages in technology and such, the Ka-50 weights 1800kg more than the Apache.