Scrim

Sigh, you sure do know how to glue separate things together if it makes you sound smart when answering. Yes, they go down lower when they must, i.e. when doing CAS tasks, and what is the almost single purpose of the A-10? Don't expect me to believe F-35s will go down low for CAS against conventional enemies.

Have I said it wouldn't? No. Have I said it's positively against all logic to proclaim it better, or even equal to those fighter jets we know for sure perform, because they have done so? Yes. What I argue against are those who claim that you can compare them. I am despite your lies not trying to compare them, which I stated very clearly over and over again. Is it stupidly naïve to believe that exercises, especially those upon which long term top level political and financial decisions rest are not more corrupted by staff officers wishing to move on to make money and produce good results for their superiors and politicians? Yes. These "advanced aerial exercises" that you laud as ultimate proof of the performance of something that has never been called upon to perform in its intended role are just as liable to end up being disproved to the extent that they are not worth even a cent, by an actual war against an equally equipped and experienced enemy. Naïve, wish thinking people like you are the ones who ensured that it was widely accepted that the RAF with biplanes would find no match in the Luftwaffe prior the second world war. I'm finished with this. The only thing I ever wrote was "beg my pardon, but there's no actual shooting war proof that this plane is as good as the manufacturer claims it to be. Seeing as how it is very logical to demand such proof before raising something to the sky and beyond, I thoroughly disagree that it's been proven to be the best of its kind", and you immediately made absurd wishful comparisons such as the F-22 and the F-15C. You've obviously chosen to suspend all logical thinking and submit completely to what for now remains nothing but sheer advertisement from politicians and the weapons industry after drinking absurd amounts of Gripen Kool Aid.

Show me the Apache that can travel at 380 knots, survive direct 23mm hits, and carry a dozen GBU-12s. Same things go for other jets, but with the speed advantage not being the max, but rather the minimum. Zooming over the battlefield at Mach 2 at an altitude of more than 30,000 feet is not benefiting to a CAS mission. Flying low and slow because you can without falling out of the sky either because you can't fly slowly without falling like a rock, or because a stray .50 round is very able to knock you of the sky, is a good thing for CAS. For all the sensors you can put on a plane, they're good for seeing and keeping track of something, but not for finding it from high altitudes at high speed, and you don't always get a FAC.

I suppose it's a bit optimistic to expect an answer considering the circumstances, but how/will the ground controlled interception, GCI, be represented?

Oh please, the differences between an F15C and an F22 are just so extreme that it's ridiculous to mention it in this context. They are two different generations, like an F16 and an F4. The Gripen and e.g. an F16 are not. Am I saying that there is a direct ratio between number of kills an quality? No, that is the straw man argument you just made up. But there is definitely a difference in the quality one can prove to be inhibited by one fighter jet that has been used for its purpose, and one that has not. That difference is sufficiently large that you can't say the latter is the better in a case like this without betraying that you're full of nonsense. The only thing I said despite you putting words in my mouth, is exactly that you can not compare them due to this, and even less claim that the untested one is better. Yes, I am deadly serious about training exercises. If you believe that such things as Red Flag are a panacea to buruecratic and political manipulation, then you are adorably naïve. So, the "threat environment" in Vietnam caused the US military to ensure setbacks in aerial warfare would never ever occur again? Then how come the considerably worse "threat environment" in the Pacific in early WW2 didn't cause them to ensure such a thing before the Vietnam war even started? By that logic there'd never have been setbacks in Vietnam.

No, it wasn't. How many Libyan fighter jets scrambled to intercept any foreign fighters, bombers, AWACs, etc? How many planes were shot down? Aside from that one plane that crashed, did any other ones even come close to the ground? And it is outright nonsense to say that it is better, or even has much of a reputation compared to planes like the F-16, that have actually dropped ordnance and downed enemy fighters. Also, most importantly, combat exercises are what the USAF used as proof that they had no issues during the Vietnam war, and what the RAF used as proof that they had even less problems before WW2.

What I quite clearly wrote is that it's naive to say a plane is even half decent based solely on exercises. It has not one single hour of flying in combat. Flying unarmed recon flights over Libya with no threat picture wasn't participating in a conflict, it was a political and commercial use of them, to gain favours with NATO, and to show it off to potential customers. Political decisions about how to employ it doesn't mean a thing were it to participate in a war against even relatively outdated planes, such as in the Gulf war. Am I saying it's a worthless, piece of crap plane worth less than the paper used for its manuals? No, I'm saying that the complete absence of proof that it is, or probably is the best of its kind. No one can honestly say that something built explicitly for warfare can be proven to be good until it has taken part in war, where it has been fired upon, and fired back, all in anger. The only thing proven about it being the best in the world is the price tag on it, and the price of keeping it flying.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but what proof? There's absolutely zero real world (as in use it in combat) proof. And considering that I think we all know how every defense contractor and air force on the planet is more concerned about making their equipment look good in training, as opposed to put it through trials to evaluate if it indeed is good, I think we can rule out exercises.

WTF, you woke up at 8PM? :P

Exactly. Please keep quiet if you can't help speculating and making outrageous accusations based solely on assumptions.

Was about to respond that I meant in a more general manner, not so specific, but the third one looks just like that. Cheers.

Well, as the title says, which books would you recommend about flying, or just military/history in general?

And yet again, just why do people think that throwing money at the Mig team will help? Here's a hint: Internal means just that. Or are some people around here so demeaning towards the Mig team that they're actually suggesting bribes in exchange for the team "behaving" by ceasing their disagreements and releasing the module?

Reckon it depends solely on how detailed a sim they make out of it, if even to that level. It could be Arma level, it could be SB level. Well, maybe not, but you get the jest.

Well played :megalol:

Like adding the "drag" to "queen"? :D

I don't know man, I just picked it up from Inglourious Basterds, it sounds very English :P

Awfully sorry old chap, could you rewrite that in the King's English? I'm rather afraid I don't speak the pidgin English that is the norm over in the Colonies. :music_whistling:

Look, I'm not even British, but I have to react to things like this. It's one thing to get pissed off at your enemy and urinate on his dead guys, that's understandable to a point. But to completely and utterly ravage and mutilate a language by speaking that primitive, pidgin English you call "American English" is to take it too far! Off to the Hague with y'all, it's time to answer for what you've done :P

Throttle is supposed to be about 2 inches up. I've also found that the auto start up is dodgy at best with the P-51D, which I think is due to the primer/starter just being pressed down for a predetermined number of seconds, instead of for as long required to actually get the engine going. My best advice would actually just be to run the engine start tutorial. The only planes that are easier to start than the P-51D are the Flaming Cliff ones, so it doesn't really take long to learn.

Or just maybe, before screaming "stolen valour" (yes, it's spelled with a "u" :D ), we'll take into consideration the link of events: Someone with a great interest in planes ask someone which plane she is flying, through a person who probably only knew it was the F-15, and has no idea what "Strike Eagle", "C", "E", etc. means in this context. Maybe someone confused F-15E with F-15 Eagle?

Fair enough, just hoping it's soon, as opposed to Soon © ;)

It's not the public announcement I'm talking about, just the YT films. What on Earth could possibly mean they can't make those public again?

I just gotta ask, if you've actually sorted out your issues within the team, what's up with almost every single YT film of your module still being set to private? Surely you understand why that isn't exactly incredibly trust inspiring, or why it doesn't make sense? I can hardly imagine there being some complex bureaucratic process behind making YT films public.

If you were hovering/flying slowly whilst shooting at targets that were shooting back, the fear wasn't irrational mate :D