Tirak

You know what would be really fun? If someone just said "Screw it" and made an F-16XL. It would be an F-16, but the F-16 wishlisters would hate it because it's not a real F-16 :lol: Viper drivers, I love you all and when an F-16 Block 40 and up comes to DCS I'll be there right with you, but seriously can we cut it with the "F-16NAO" threads every couple of weeks?

Will you guys be modeling centerline TGP carrying? It's a relatively new development, but it frees up one of the much needed pylons for bombs, at the expense of a centerline jammer.

It's a tailgate duh, gotta bring the truck :lol:

Speak for yourself, I brought my truck, a lawn chair and a keg, I gave up hanging and have decided to just enjoy watching y'all hold on.

You misunderstand me, I'm not saying they tested full sweep takeoffs from carriers, only that they no doubt would have performed full sweep takeoff testing, where is irrelevant, but I cannot imagine that a test of an F-14 taking off at full sweep must have been performed at some point, whether from a land based runway or a carrier, it's testing that I cannot imagine not being performed.

The plane was tested with wings in full sweep doing carrier landings, I'm positive they've done full sweep take off testing too.

That's what i thought, but i couldn't figure out why you'd need a TARPS pod for DACT.

I dunno, the Bronco's newer, but the Panther is a jet after all. Imma go with the Panther.

Really? 'cause this is what Pman wrote:

VEAO IS NOT participating in the NH 90 development anymore. They dropped it because it was more than they could handle at the time. They ARE NO LONGER INVOLVED. You shouldn't post things about Red Wing's NH 90 here anymore than you would post a Leatherneck trailer in this section.

At about 12:23 in the video when they're doing their walkaround of the aircraft, there is what appears to be a centerline drop tank. I tried to do a little digging and came up with some very brief snippets about the F-14 having a plumbed hardpoint there, but nothing concrete. Anyone have any information on this?

So what percentage is this aircraft actually done? Systems modeling, flight modeling ect. We've all learned over the years that the model is the easy part (Well, for most TPDs), but systems integration and flight model takes a long time.

There are quite a few instances throughout this report of DOTE overstepping their mandate, misrepresenting facts and statistics. Yes, it has quite a few pithy comments, but the end result is that the DOTE report is written in such a way to cast maximum doubt on the program, while not accuratly representing what is going on by doing things such as regurgitating out of date information, or comparing current generation software against software that isn't scheduled for implementation until well after the time period that the report is meant to deal with. The report was written with a heavy heavy slant, and the guide is more there to remind readers of what that slant is. Obviously reading only the cliff notes provided won't give you an accurate idea of what is going on, but when taken in conjunction with the report, you can gain some insight as to the actual progress of the program, rather than the "The Sky is Falling" and self aggrandizing stance the DOTE report brings.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22527 Reader's guide to the report, enjoy :lol:

This right here is what makes my blood boil, this completely separated from reality argument that people make, thinking the Air Force doesn't care. It hearkens back to WWII at the battle of Dunkirk, where ground troops who didn't understand what was happening in the air, blamed the RAF for the bombings. It was wrong then, and it's still wrong now. The Air Force has aggressively pursued a policy of supporting the man on the ground, to say otherwise is either willful ignorance, or a flat out lie, and anyone who takes the time to understand the weapons and techniques now being developed by the Air Force can see that the number one goal of the Air Force, is to support the war in every way they can. Strategic targets? The bomber fleet shrinks every year, yet the tactical fighters that perform CAS get billions thrown into them to ensure that when CAS is called for, it shows up, pin point every time. To add to that, you spit on the honor of the Air Force for the cross Congress gave to them. The Air Force cannot afford single mission aircraft anymore, they don't have the budget. They have to perform an ever widening array of missions with a steadily shrinking budget, and you have the gall to say they're blinded and uncaring. They're so desperately pursuing these technologies, such as milimetric radar, and small diameter bombs, and laser guided cannon shells, and stealth, and EO-DAS so that they can keep to the front and support the troops no matter how thick the enemy coverage is, and no matter how small the budget shrinks, that it is flat out insulting for you to imply that their goal is not to support the man on the ground. If you want to question the effectiveness of oncoming platforms, if you want to claim that legacy platforms are superior because they have armor that can't actually protect it from a real threat and weapons that fell short of being effective when they were introduced 40 years ago, so be it. But don't you dare try to spit on the Air Force and call them uninterested or uncaring of the well being of their brothers and sisters fighting on the ground.:mad:

This is a load of bollocks. The only reason why a slow platform was preferred was because it gave more time to understand the situation as you came in. This argument worked back when the primary instrument to identify targets was the human eye, this is no longer the case. Future aircraft, and yes in this case the F-35 have gone to great lengths to improve situational and focused awareness using technology. The idea that the Air Force does not care about CAS is a laughable assertion that relies on the emotion of the speaker, and not fact. The F-16 series of fighters was constantly upgraded and changed, against the advice of certain 'analysts' in order to make it a more capable ground attack platform to support the troops. The entire F-15E program represents a conscious effort on the part of the Air Force to give a tactical bomber that could support the troops, in addition to other missions. And do you possibly think that the F-35's DAS system is there for Air to Air combat primarily? In an aircraft with an AESA radar you think DAS was included because we needed to see what we were shooting at in high definition infrared? No, it was specifically built in so that the F-35 would have a powerful sensor system to ensure it could provide pin point support on the battlefield with weapons such as the SDB, a weapon that if you believe the Air Force is only interested in strategic targets makes absolutely zero sense, or with its 25mm cannon, which will have in the near future laser guided bullets, without lighting up friendly infantry columns. The idea of the A-10 or some other slow mud mover being the ideal aircraft for CAS survives only as long as it takes for the person to understand the changes in sensor technology and the progression of weapons systems that the Air Force uses that moves towards smaller, less collateral damage and more precise weapons, that exist. Fun fact for you. The A-10, the slowest combat aircraft in our arsenal, is also responsible for the most friendly deaths because its out of date design doesn't lend itself to the latest in information gaining sensors. Out of date technology costs lives. On the battlefield, Information saves lives and kills enemies, not your Mach number. The A-10 was out of date for anti tank work since the day it rolled out of the factory in the 70s. That point was ruthlessly driven home by the fact that during ODS, it was the F-111 that killed the most tanks. CAS is a mission, not a platform, and technology has changed the way we accomplish that mission.

Oh come on, not this again. :doh: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part.html

Because you can use those tools as long as you have arms. A drill runs out of batteries, and if your compressor doesn't work, neither does any pneumatic tool.

We're talking hilarious amounts of money, and years of time. First, and the easiest part, is going out to that desert storage facility where all the tooling for the airframe is, shipping that to a factory, that you have free and on hand (Not bloody likely) and inspecting every single piece for any amount of corrosion (After all, we're talking super tight tolerances here, you're not just boring into 516 steel with +-10 thou)and replace anything that isn't good anymore. We're assuming you have all the machines you need at this factory (again, not bloody likely, so you'll have to order them in, and that takes MONTHS). Now you've got your machines, and your tools, but you need engineers. Okay, hire those dudes, give them benefits and all that goodness, because Government contract. Oh yeah, building and OSEA inspections! WOOHOOO that's gonna take a while, because again, gov contract and red tape. This is also assuming you're already in a facility meant to build aircraft, because if not, well MORE inspections, because zoning and certifications! Also, background checks for all them engineers you just hired and handing out code word clearance! MORE MONTHS :D Ok, we've got the people, we've got the machines, we've got the tools, and OSEA finally said we've got enough fire extinguishers. TRAINING TIME!!! Those engineers need training for the job they're doing, the need time to learn from all the prints, ect. ect. ect. We'll do it as we go, but that means slow startup. But wait, we don't have materials.... Shit, gotta issue contracts, put them up for bidding because, Government Contract. So that process is gonna take a few... you thought i was going to say months right? Nope, this is gonna take YEARS. Also, congress, soooo, double that... then double it again. So now materials are finally coming in, we've got the engineers and machinists and janitors and supervisors and quality controllers ect. ect. ect. ect. ad nauseam~ we've got machines, and tools, oh and by the way we've negotiated with the gov for the buy of F-22s. We've started low rate production, because we've gotta work out all the bugs and kinks in the assembly line, and incorporate all the post production line closing changes. By the end of this, we've spent about 15 years and tens of billions of dollars to restart the line, producing F-22s that will cost several hundred million to recoup that cost, initially. So no, F-22 is done, no one else will ever build it again. Move on.

It's been the end of the line since 2011 when the last Raptor was finished. There will be no restarting the Raptor line, it is illegal to export, and Congress will not fund it. She is a gorgeous plane, but she's just too expensive and specialized, and with shrinking military budgets, we can't afford planes that do one and a half mission types.

F-14 doesn't have ground scanning radar, the Navy wanted it when they were retiring the Intruder, but they found that the F-14's radar really is a poor fit for ground scanning, and they didn't have the budget to fix that deficiency.

Literally against the law, and Boeing only helped produce it, the Raptor is more properly Lockheed's baby.

So this Phoenix is accurately taking out a hard evading target at close range... I think cackling is in order.

Oh, I thought that because the E was just a different warhead and fuze, it would be compatible with any aircraft that could use the C, and I know it was carried on the M. Still, Bullpup's will be pretty fun to add into the game, I don't think there's any MCLOS weapons in DCS yet, so it'll be a first! :thumbup:

Any chance of the C and E versions of the Bullpup too? :pilotfly: