TaccoZ__Amigo1__

The other two planes... By not flying "over" the USSR I meant, they never flew "trough" it, so for example they did not fly from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean on the direct route. After that is clear, you need to understand that the USSR did not wait until their borders were crossed, they immeadiately scrambled their interceptors as any suspicious aircraft neared their borders. Also, the USSR's air defence was set up in a way, that nearly all their interceptors were stationed at or close to the boarder, wich meant, that you were always "close" to interceptor bases and Capable SAM sites. That said, ther have been countless attempst to intercept a Habu and not even the SR-71 pilot were sure if the interceptors would shoot if they'd get the chance, which of course they never got. These facts are thoroughly described in the book. AFAIK these Interceptors included MiG-25s wich AFAIK have better high altitude performance than the Foxhound. Edit to add a better description of the failed intercepts: The SR-71 Pilots and RSOs describe flying over highly defended areas, particularly nuclear test sites on Islands in the Arctic Ocean just off the USSRs coast and seeing the interceptors stall out "down low" at approximately angels 60 in the contrails. So basically: Noone even got close

No panic, they are still there, the OP is only saying they are not reliable anymore

It [is not confirmed it] flew over the USSR mainland :D What is confirmed though is that she flew over the Korean DMZ and all over North Vietnam including Hanoi, the most heavily defended airspace in the world (at that time).

Any info on when the next event will be? I'd love to join you guys then (maybe include P-51s with HVARs?)

Sorry but wrong, in theory it would be possible but since th Habu's RCS is pretty small and she is constantly going M3.5+ on a "hot leg" as the call it, reaction time is extremely small, also "those SR-71s" weren't flying across the USSR (at least not after the U-2 shootdown) but next to it, scraping along the boarder. You should read the excellent book "Flying the SR-71" by Colonel Richard Graham (former commander of the 8th Strategic Recce Wing and SR-71 IP), then you'll understand why no SR-71 has EVER been even touched.

I know abou the Bison, the LanceR the -93 etc. but we were talking about an opponent for the MiG-21BIS

Okay, I'll take that as a reason :D

I have found this great interview, this pilot talks about his experiences flying and compares the performance of Viper, Eagle, Fulcrum, Tiger II and Talon. He also comments on newer planes as the Lightning II and Raptor. Really interesting read :thumbup: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

I don't think you're right, for the bis it should be an F-4B or something even earlier, remember: Late F-4s have supreme look-down-shoot-down capability, they can also carry slammers

Can the Jester AI please be named Goose AI and the voices be ripped out of TOP GUN? I'd love to hear Maverick and Goose while fighting some MiG-28s :pilotfly: Oh and a MiG-28 skin for the F-5 is of course mandatory :thumbup:

I'd love to see an F-4! but rather an F-4N (Navy version, smokeless engines, no gun but SUU-23 gunpods) or even an F-4J than only an F-4E because it wouldn't have carrier ops. I'd love to see an F-4D or G or even an F-4E Terminator 2020 for ground attack. But as a fighter we definately need a navy F-4! Anyways, any Phantom would be absolutely great though, wether it is F-4B/C/D/E/F/G/J/K/M/N/Kurnass/or any other export version By the way: The Luftwaffe F-4F ICE had an AN/APG-65 and could carry AMRAAMS

*cough* Black *cough* bird *cough* :music_whistling:

I really really hope there is an F-4 somewhere in the mix, just gotta love that plane!

I voted for Vietnam, but I'd also be fine with a Japan-Korea(s)-China theatre, there is a lot of potential for conflict in that area and also a mlot of ocean we can fly from and over. That should also make for a bigger map size (more Water means less objects to place)! I cant wait to cross the border to north Vietnam with my Phantom and shoot some Frescos and Fishbeds down :joystick:

Yes it does, but it's not as accurate as plugging it into LASTE

This very problem is the reason why you were off, the parallax error for the terrain can be compensated very accurately by the laser, but there is a second part to it: The SPI position is not compensated for the parallax error of looking at the target and not at the ground it stands on, so If you see a truck and you point your TGP at its center(probably a few feet over the ground), your TGP is actually looking through the vehicle at the ground behind it and will put your SPI, which is just a ground coordinate, somewhere behind the target you're looking at(or through:music_whistling:). This is also the reason the SPI in the OP's example was "off", they were probably far away from the target they were marking(as they were marking a SAM which you don't want to be close to) so the angle at wich he was marking the target was very shallow which leads to the SPI being off the intended target. AFAIK DLing the SPI through TAD or through MSG-page is equally accurate and has a very very low error (less than 1m) So to mark targets accurately from afar: Look at the point where the target and the ground intersect and use your laser while setting the SPI Problem solved?:pilotfly:

1. Why use dumb bombs to destroy tanks when you can carry as much PGMs? 2. When using dumb bombs (for example for CAS in low threat AO), try to minimize flight time of the bomb (within the pull out limits of the 'hog) by diving at a maximum angle, maximum speed and a minimal altitude. Also you must set up the LASTE for wind AND temperature. Only that way you can ensure maximum precision with dumb bombs 3. Another option is rippling a lot of dumb bombs or using cluster munitions/SFWs (that will not work with heavy wind though)

I use the same stick, and I only have my hat switch, my Push-to-Talk and my Slew controls mapped to it.

Win7/64

Of the System Pressure Derivations in his example

I really really like the test scheme, looks very similar to the one used on the F-15 ACTIVE or S/MDT

I get what you mean but, I've figured out such a system for my self, which is probably even more complicated than what you suggest, since I have a stick with very little buttons. I have a kind of standard configuration for each plane and all my sims, so my controls for the A-10 don`t differ too much from my controls for my 737. So I wouldn't benefit from it but I would definitely save some time for others. For me setting up my binds take a sh*tton of time but it's also a part of my learning experience. Good Idea anyways

Good stuff, keep it up!

YES we need BiG aircraft in DCS, I'd buy every AWACS, transport, Bomber or big Helo I can get my hands on. The Mi-26 would be my dream!

I strongly agree with the proposal to ban AI in the military. To be honest, I'd rather live in a world where each nation has a thousand nukes and ICBMs at it's disposal than live in a world where there is even a single "true" AI. "True" AI meaning that it can learn, upgrade itself and is able to access any information it wants (e.g. the Internet) Because then, if the AI is installed on an even moderately strong computer, it would learn so incredibly quickly and efficiently that it would in my thoughts be uncontrollable. And an uncontrollable, self-sustaining, self-upgrading "killer-robot" is in my opinion the most dangerous thing there is. Just think of the AI finding out what humans do to our planet and even to each other, wouldn't it be the best thing to just wipe all of them off the face of the earth? And if a 19 year old can hack the CIA, an AI could probably hack into everything it wants, also military computers or ICBM control facilities. I really don't want some AI kill us all, even though it might be a good for this planet :music_whistling: