Scrim

Go a bit further on the new weapons sight feature, where slicks don't have sights. I.e. remove the flexsight if there's no flex mounted Miniguns, and remove both the flexsight and the pilot infinity sight if there are no pilot controlled weapons at all, but only door guns.

What is it? The one below AI Gunner skill.

There's the SU-25T with SEAD capability, but it's not quite the same really.

Sometimes I forget what a massive machine the US military is. Now I'll remember for a while :D

As in release sometime after 1.2.8, or release at the same time as 1.2.8?

Personally, I think the coolest version of it is the G, mainly because Wild Weasel'ing appeals to me a bunch more than dogfighting.

Nope, was no joke: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2047972&postcount=19

The SSSR also claimed that the Germans were behind Katyn, so excuse me if I don't believe them. If you can't get any clearer than "the soviets/Internet said it", I'm gonna go ahead and conclude that there's absolutely zero basis for your claim that the MiG-21 was superior to the Phantom.

Again, link please. That is, a link to an USAF Phantom pilot who flew in Vietnam, and said that 2 Phantoms were shot down for every MiG-21 shot down in dogfights during the Vietnam war.

Slagging of modules that don't fit your taste as "lame trainers" and "far flung" isn't just immature, it's out right insulting towards the devs who've put a lot of effort into them. You wanna hop over to the VEAO sub forum and tell them more to their face that you don't want their "lame trainer"? And then onto BST and/or ED to tell them you don't want their Huey and/or P-51D because it's "far flung" and without "historical opposition"? It's one thing to write semi serious poll options, but you're just slagging off the people who put a lot of very hard work on giving us more modules and keeping DCS alive. Major attitude problem.

Didn't think so. The almost 1:2 ratio of Phantoms to Mig-21s are fact. Discovery channel isn't. And that's despite flying over hostile territory, with enemy radars that ROEs prevented being destroyed, ROEs that prevented them using longer range missiles, and with the NV Vietnamese airforce always being able to chose when to fight. Operation Bolo goes some way towards indicating what the outcome was when they fought on more even terms.

Want it, but voted no on account of immature poll options.

Please link me to the survey that was told by a majority that they'd preferred a Mig-21 over their Phantom. The actual facts don't really match that perceived (wished) quality difference.

Just wish we'd get an English cockpit for it.

It's a pretty desperate method that's only used by air defences when they're well SEAD'd. The NV Vietnamese did it, and the Iraqis after them. You don't stand much of a chance of hitting anything. It is the perfect SAM equivalent of Beirut FOs. You don't want to risk getting shot by actually aiming at the enemy, so you just turn the radar on briefly when you reckon it's just before it's too late.

That statements does not indicate a thorough knowledge of, well, any sort of combat, be in under the sea, on the sea, on land or above land and sea. And that's putting it very nicely.

You said it man. When I first bought the Huey, I didn't even have a stick. No stick, no thrust thingy, no pedals, no nothing, just the keyboard. What a nightmare :P

I've got one that'll beat y'all's planes: :D

Agreed, great documentary. Extensive, very educational, completely unbiased, figures from all sides interviewed, relatively unknown events put into context in the greater picture, etc. First episode, the rest are easy to find from the same YT account:

Oh dear, it looks like people with nothing better on their hands will yet again fight about why aircraft they haven't touched, seen in action, lived to see during the war, or been in any way related to them is the better one.

Not completely fair, but considering how long they insist it will be viable to keep the B-52s around, I think a comparison can be made to a certain degree. I mean, almost a hundred years. We've only had military aviation for a bit longer than that now, so it's quite the statement to make.

People aren't disagreeing with replacing the A-10 per se, but with what it will be replaced with; The F-35, a plane that is not designed, or suited for CAS. And it's hard to that the USAF seriously when they say that the A-10 is getting too old, but at the same time insist that there's no problem what-so-ever keeping the B-52 around until it's almost 100 years old.

Is the A-10 the magical solution to everything CAS? No, but definitely a big part, and owing to the A-10 being dedicated solely to CAS, which is the most immediate way of helping the ground effort, it can't be replaced by something that is only in part built for CAS, without leaving a large vacuum in the CAS capability. However, the USAF that has virtually no troops on the front line does not benefit from CAS, so it's easy to see why many there DGAF about how many infantry, tankers and other front line personnel that will be killed when an A-10, or just any CAS dedicated plane could have prevented it. It's the same old story of 40-50 year old staff officers who actually are so arrogant that they just think "they're cannon fodder, they would've died anyway" if it doesn't contribute to their careers.

Nah, didn't you read the Gripen thread? If you send a jet to a training exercise, you'll know exactly how well it'll perform in actual combat. :music_whistling:

So not only are you saying that the less funding the devs have, the better the product, you're also saying that "if you don't agree, you don't understand. I.e. you're saying "because magic, that's why". :megalol: