Tirak

I think your eyes are bigger than your stomach mate. You say you're a novice modeler, and yet you're leaping into a fairly complex shape, and trying to set up a team for an even more complex module on a highly classified aircraft. I think instead of throwing yourself at a brick wall and hoping everything turns out right, you take more time to get comfortable with modeling. Build yourself up. develop your skills. Work on simpler shapes to develop the tools you're going to need to break that wall. If you continue as you are, you're going to burn yourself out. If aircraft has to be your thing, look at some more simple shaped aircraft and work your way up to being able to efficiently pull off something like the fullback. You're trying to run before you can walk mate.

Weight. The Aim-54 is 1,000lbs. The 4 rail adaptors for the belly carry was another 400lbs each. Sure the Tomcat's big, but even that bird is affected by the weight. Fun fact, the reason why the 6 Phoenix loadout was so rare (except in certain battlegroups because they were nuts/awesome) is because it exceeds the safe return weight. You hang a total of 8,000lbs (rails which you can't ditch, and missiles) off an aircraft and you limit maneuverability, and it's an outright pain in the ass for handlers to load because of it. If you're going into a dogfight you don't want that weight. Which is why the air superiority load is with Sparrows.

There are exactly 2 ways of looking at the Phoenix. 1. Click Delete. To these people that Phoenix will lock on to you from the next continent over, pursue you tirelessly for three weeks before tracking you down at your mother in laws house, knock politely on the door, double check that it's you and annihilate you from existence. 2. Finned Paperweight. These folks are absolutely convinced that any claims of accuracy of maneuverability are pure fabrications made by the department of propaganda (a subsidiary of the US Treasury). The weapon does not actually have a rocket motor and is in fact the only weapon capable of missing the ground. They ignore all Iranian claims and loudly point out the failure to ignite times the US used it as the only actual true information about the weapon.

It's a dead end development, just like the A-16 gunpod was. They'd have to pull off some masterful tricky engineer shit to keep the vibrations and recoil from sending shells all over the place. As great as fly by wire is, there are some things it can't just smooth out for you, and while the F-35 is heavier, the mockups of gunpods I've seen for it are even further from the center of gravity, which will do them no favors. It's purely there to mollify the Gun CAS crowd and either will be cancelled or never fielded. 25mm APEX will be the only thing spat from F-35s until Lasers come about.

Which is why I said part. The pylon mounting and the distance from the center of gravity were important as well, but the pilot had to walk their tracers onto a target, which only exacerbated the control problems brought about by the physical problems.

Eh, sort of, kind of, not really. The F-4's rate of climb and ability to perform in the vertical was unmatched at the time, quite frankly it is superior to the MiG-21 in that aspect, however early in the war pilots received little to no training, so they tried to turn flat, where the F-4 does not do well. The F-4 is frankly a better plane than the 21, better cockpit ergonomics, better performance, superior dogfight characteristics (especially after the maneuvering slats were introduced), a vastly better radar and better missiles to use with that radar. F-4s were hampered by pilot training and RoE, not because it was inferior to the 21.

A-16s never got their updated avionics, which is part of the reason why the accuracy was so poor. :doh:

I'll be damned, I think I'm wrong: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/european-navies-worry-about-harrier-arms-22768/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spain-arms-av-8b-with-penguin-66346/ And yet, two books that say it can: https://books.google.com/books?id=pb5Y2bnujhwC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=AV8B+AGM-84&source=bl&ots=jt8wKmC4fL&sig=MlruYrf6AaF73Y6SJa4JJ5ESa4g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUws6JpcnOAhVCCsAKHeNUAnM4ChDoAQhAMAY#v=onepage&q=AV8B%20AGM-84&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=GrJR8oQJHc4C&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=AV8B+AGM-84&source=bl&ots=Ken36ob_5z&sig=dug5ROxb0CM624QmLpbj7CQ-kkY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYio7CpsnOAhUpLsAKHerZCSs4FBDoAQgyMAQ#v=onepage&q=AV8B%20AGM-84&f=false

Yep, like I said, to start with. When I get home I'll do some more in depth hunting for yall. Wikipedia claims to be sourced on the information, but it doesn't give me the actual book to check for.

Just to start with I've got this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0ahUKEwjT3MvSncnOAhXCJR4KHU3zB_cQFghFMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jfcbs.nato.int%2Fsystems%2Ffile_download.ashx%3Fpg%3D794%26ver%3D1&usg=AFQjCNHkydOaF0mQc-7OyjK9YpKFiSlBVg&sig2=PDquVYY1DX6PdKQeLvaXOA&bvm=bv.129759880,d.ZGg&cad=rja

I was commenting on Skjold's statement that the Laser support on the Harrier's FLIR let it guide Mavericks and LGBs. The real question is will we see DITER, and if RAZBAM will allow the aircraft to carry LGBs on conventional TERs.

Laser Spot Tracker =/= Laser guiding. It means the plane can pick up the laser, not transmit one. The Harrier needs a TGP to lase. There seems to be quite a few different reputable written sources saying the AV-8B+ can mount Harpoons and HARMs, so frankly I don't view that capability as in doubt.

Just curious given the flatness of the response, why?

I love how we all still don't know Polychop's mystery helicopter, but we're still all clamoring for the Tornado. ... Not that I'm any different, a Tonka would be awesome, but still it amuses me.

That would be a bad idea. These developers need to make contracts with the aircraft manufacturers in order to make their modules. Going out and saying "Oooh, this plane would totally be a passion project for us!" shows their hand. It's like getting excited at a car dealership. Better to play things close to the chest.

No need to make an official thread until there is something worth showing off. Early renders aren't worth much frankly. Just look at VEAO, they're on their 3rd or 4th exterior model and they've been working on that plane for years now. RAZBAM is probably waiting, and correctly so, to start its hype train closer to when they're ready to release, that way they don't burn out the fans like LN did.

God that thing's ugly.

There are several wishlists threads in the sub forum alone.

Do we really need another wishlist thread?

Vintage air to air I can understand, we need enough aircraft of an era to support equal dogfights. It's why I can understand picking things like an F-4E over an F-4 Terminator or KWS. But why do people want vintage ground attack? It makes no sense. You can still do vintage style ground attack with more modern ground attack aircraft, but you cannot do precision strike with vintage aircraft. I will never understand some people, but then again I don't understand civil aviation simmers either...

This project is clearly an audition piece, they're not going to abandon it just because a few people are turned off by certain limitations of not having the SDK.

Apparently a General made a statement saying F-117As were working with F-16s and using the F-16s as bait for SAMs and using HARMS. The statement is frankly rather confusing and so who is actually carrying the HARMs is ambiguous, but it's certainly possible to interpret the way he said it as the F-117As were the ones carrying them. However, this is likely a misinterpretation of what he actually meant. Still, because of this, there's quite a few web pages that make the claim that F-117As can carry not only Paveways, but HARMs and Mavericks as well. I would note that those armaments are staples of the F-16, which were also being discussed at the time, thus the confusion. Aside from those articles, I can find no reliable technical source, that can reference anything other than that interview, that claims the F-117A is capable of employing missiles of any kind.

He doesn't like the gaps in realism that the Hoggit one is going to have. Why is that worthy of scorn? He didn't insult anybody, so what's got your knickers all in a twist? :huh:

But a A-10C with 6 mavericks is completely realistic. The aircraft can mount them. It requires no additional changes, programming or modification. The F-5E would require rewiring to allow for additional sidewinders on the wings. The A-10 argument is about a doctrine, the F-5 is about physical reality. These are not comparable arguments to make, period.

But it's a false point. The guys asking for less weapons were arguing in favor of doctrinal realism. The A-10C as modeled in game, the variant we actually have is capable of mounting and using 6 maverick missiles, but due to doctrinal reasons, real world pilots do not. The F-5E-3 as modeled in game, cannot use more than 2 sidewinders. Not because of a maintenance decision, not because of standard practices, but because it cannot physically mount them and use them. Requests to either give it a capability it does not have or to upgrade to a different module is a completely different argument, than that of the A-10.