Tirak

It would only work for very short ranged small aircraft. Lets face it, most of the FSX community actually wouldn't want to come over to DCS because the map in DCS is tiny compared to what they get to play on. You can fly across the globe in FSX. DCS offers only short hops between regional airfields. I think people get too caught up in how pretty DCS looks and forget that it has some serious limitations when it comes to civilian aircraft.

Lol, mouthing off? Mate, Davison asked if the module was worth it. I don't think it is so I said so and I said why. If opinions are asked for, I'll give mine, even if it's not the popular one. :lol:

@Matt: Yes, I classify it as a trainer because its air to air armament is the same as the other trainers, and its air to ground armament is handled entirely by adjusting depression angle and matching your speed and altitude. No CCIP, no CCRP, no TGP, no radar guided weapons or guided air to ground weapons of any kind. It is good to teach you to fly and do light bombing, like all the other trainers. Matt, Davison asked for opinions on the fighter if it was worth buying or waiting, I gave mine. It's a glorified trainer, not worth the money because it lacks capabilities. I explained my logic since some people wanted to, for some reason, pigeon hole everyone who has turned down the F-5 as some sort of ADD ridden CoD fanboy, which is a gross misrepresentation of the argument I was making. Just because you don't agree with my reasons, doesn't mean I shouldn't freely share them so the person making a purchasing decision can look at an issue from all sides. @Blacklion: Strawman and you know it. The F-18C has an AA/AG radar, TGP, long range radar guided missiles, anti shipping missiles, MITL weapons, anti radiation missiles, GBUs, LGBs, in addition to its dumb bomb armament.

No it does not, it has to do with disposable income. It makes no financial sense for me to waste money on a supersonic trainer, since the percentage of my income that goes into my entertainment, is vastly more affected by a purchase of a module than yours is. It is impossible to justify purchasing something that will give me objectively less enjoyment because it lacks a great deal of capability. I have minimum thresholds of what I expect my entertainment to provide, and for 60 USD, the F-5 does not meet those thresholds.

Fake argument, it's all about dollar for capability, and when looked at in that light, the F-5E on offer is a glorified trainer with the same asking price as an aircraft that will give me more.

No PGMs, of any kind and 2 outdated sidewinders. If he's looking for a multimission strike craft, he's better off with either the Mirage or waiting for the Tomcat, or the Viggen.

What are you hoping for in the F-5E? Supersonic Aggressor Trainer? Go for it. Short Range Air Defense Fighter? Only if you've got cash burning a hole in your pocket. Multi Mission Fighter with a worthwhile payload? Wait for the Tomcat.

I'd choc that more up to the fact that the F-16 has an unobstructed bubble canopy. The view an F-16 has is simply unparalleled, even by the F-22 due to the F-22's HUD. I'm a staunch defender of the F-35, but even I grumble at the choice to give the F-35 a canopy bow up front.

When mounted on an F-5 it can't because of spacing, the bottom bomb of the rear set doesn't give enough clearance.

Welcome to the cool kids table :P

You missed 8 x FAB-100 and 4x R60M :music_whistling:

If you're going to buy a Saitek, buy a 52. The 55 and 56 don't have a dual stage trigger, and that for me at least, is a game breaker.

They have talked about it. It's the reason why we're not getting any of the Navy's Experimental Squadron's loadouts for AMRAAMs, HARMs and Harpoons on the F-14A/B. They said it was a direct response to the backlash on the ASP and Sapfir Radar.

Well its already got a drogue chute so we're part of the way there.

I would imagine lots of under the hood stuff going on. There likely isn't a whole lot of "Wow" stuff to show at the moment.

Yep, the "Dogfight" Sparrow is the direct result of this, with greater G tolerances and instantaneous turn rates thanks to redesigned fins. It was because the 9B was so awful that Sparrows kept getting thrown even when they weren't within proper launch parameters. This lead to lots of hung stores from over G and missed shots. To be fair, early Sparrows most certainly did have reliability problems because of the fragility of those early electronics (Thus the ripple fire practice), but how Sparrows were launched in the early days is just as important to factor in when looking at the poor Pk rates that the weapon demonstrated. It's one of the many reasons why using Vietnam as an example of how BVR missiles perform in real combat when extrapolating for modern weapons is a shaky argument to make. With that said, this little off topic line is reminding me just how badly I want a Phantom :P

Nope, referring to the Sparrows, though the Sidewinders had huge problems too, and was definitely the worse of the two when it came to seeking, resulting in pilots trying to use sparrows in dogfights as well, with predictable results.

The major problem was pilots didn't know how to use the missile, and would fire it outside of parameters. If fired as instructed in the manual, the Sparrow was fairly accurate, even in early days, but pilots forgot that pretty quick in a dogfight and launched sparrows at targets while under high g, something early Sparrows weren't built to handle.

The problem with that loadout is you have to bring the pallets, something the 2 Phoenix loadout doesn't have to do. The pallets are very heavy, and reduce the aerodynamic effect of the pancake, taking away some of your maneuverability edge.

I do have to wonder just how much of a range advantage you think your Legacy and Super Hornets have over an F-16 with CFTs, much less an F-35. Canada hasn't had a long range interceptor since... the Voodoo? On a scale of MiG-21 to Mudhen, where would you rate the Voodoo's range?

Admit it, F-16s in RCAF livery would be pretty sexy.

Yeah but we've been over this, Super Hornet and Hornet don't share part commonality, so that's out. Canada doesn't need CATOBAR capability, and the engine reliability argument at this point is facetious given the reliability of new engines. Block 60 matches the AESA radar, already has CFTs as a tested and battle proven utility, unlike the the Super Hornet's (which have only ever flown on the Prototype demonstrator). Really Canada would be paying extra cost for an aircraft with extra capability they literally cannot use (CATOBAR). Sure, it's nice to say "F the Man" by not buying Lockheed at this point, but the Super Hornet's a pretty poor choice if you have to buy an American 4th gen fighter.

Legitimately, you've got me in stitches, but we can't go there, that's politics. :megalol: