Tirak

Ah, you are mistaken in my contention. I do not state that the MiG-21 is the more agile opponent. The MiG's advantage comes from the greater engagement options its radar guided missiles give it. I do however contend that the F-5 is the more agile opponent, which when taken into account with its cannon, helps make up for its inferior missiles.

Which until we actually get the module is the only way we can discuss it.

There doesn't seem to be any JA version in the pipe however, given what we see from the Steam DB module list. I base my assumptions purely on the AJS-37, noting the lack of gun, and BVR missiles. The MiG-21 has a close and medium range toolkit that the Viggen simply cannot copy. The MiG-21 gets SARH missiles, which can be fired at a longer range than the 9L, giving the MiG the advantage at the merge. Furthermore, according to German wikipedia, the Viggen is only stressed to 7g, limiting its turning performance. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37

The Viggen has no gun, and limited to sidewinders only. While the 9Ls are all aspect, they are less effective at engaging targets from the front than the back. The MiG doesn't have this problem. Sure it's gun isn't anything special, but it is a very capable fallback, and it has radar guided missiles, giving it an advantage going into the merge. BVR goes to the MiG, BFM also goes to the MiG. The Viggen just has fewer options in how to engage, and while technically it's sidewinders are more advanced, the MiG has a bigger toolbox to play with. Against the F-5, the advantage is murky. Neither have a BVR weapon, and the F-5 is limited to AIM-9Ps, and likely not the P4s which are all aspect. However, the Tiger does have a gun and is a more agile aircraft. I would however still give advantage to the F-5, simply because it has more options. The Viggen in air to air is a one trick pony. No gun, no BVR, and while the engine is respectable, she is no dogfighter in terms of nimbleness. Long story short, bring Sidewinders but avoid the fight.

This happened when?

Um mate, $500 is more than the Thrustmaster Warthog, so that price point is either obviously a joke, or you don't understand the very business sense you just insulted Intruder for.

He's harping on about the Mach 1.6 speed limit imposed on the aircraft, because he's willingly forgetting that the F-16, the moment you put a fuel tank under the wings, or a payload of any worth, it drops down to that speed too, or that the much beloved Hornet only hits Mach 1.8 on a good day.

It is taboo on these forums to discuss the features and advantages of BMS over DCS, as such I cannot offer a proper defense of my position, only that I believe in its current form your statements are inaccurate. I will not discuss BMS specifics in public for that reason, but as you have already seen, one developer has specifically stated they have no desire to compete with BMS, and ED is rather notably developing a module that is not 100% accurately portrayed in BMS, instead of taking BMS on directly. Given the rocky nature of the subject, I suggest we drop discussion of BMS here, and continue speaking about the Nighthawk, an iconic plane in its own right. Name recognition alone goes a long way, and for many, this unique aircraft, even if limited in mission scope, would no doubt draw significant sales. I would also note that mission scope is determined by players and mission designers, to be improvised, and for aircraft capabilities to be creatively experimented with, rather than using the Nighthawk in the most safe way possible as actual US SOP dictates.

F-16 is out because BMS exists, Rafale is out because the French are incredibly protective of any information regarding their equipment, so there would be zero chance of accurate implementation at a DCS level. The Nighthawk is frankly one of the most iconic aircraft in the world. The first stealth warplane, famous for their role at slipping in past Iraqi air defenses and wrecking everything they went after. You would be hard pressed to find a more recognizable plane. I really want to know mvsgas, was the plane really that much of a bitch to maintain that you hate it forever and ever? :megalol:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=1167062f82b72cc7cef50ff189cd1e6d&tab=core&_cview=1 http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27584&sid=1eb39cdfa8b7ba7c9b311b594c0fb9a8

Allow me to put this into perspective for you. An aircraft flying at 35,000ft will encounter temperatures of -55 degrees Celsius, so running in cold temperatures isn't the question, the question is starting, which testing has shown the plane will do after being frozen for a few days down to at least -40 degrees. Temperature is not an issue.

The distribution of the buy runs is dictated by agreement of the three forces, the navy shifted purchase from its F-35Cs, into F-35Bs for the Marines. Thus, as I said before, in effect the Navy is buying F-35s for the Marines. :doh:

The amount of ignorance in this statement is painful :doh: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2015/f-35-climatic-testing.html

The three services share a procurement schedule which is split among the three variants. The navy reduced its recent allotments, but the Marine Corps increased theirs by a comparable amount, which in effect means, the Navy is purchasing more F-35Bs for the Marines, a short term shift to handle current realities, the Navy isn't jumping out of the program by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a gross misrepresentation of what's actually happening. The Navy is prioritizing the F-35B purchases for the Marine Corps, as their version is already in service, and the USMC needs to replace its legacy Hornets and Harriers. Of the three air fleets, the Navy currently has the youngest and can afford to buy more F-35Bs over Cs for now. When the F-35C completes its certifications, that will no doubt change.

VFA-122 is the Fleet Replacement Squadron, you know, where replacement pilots are trained up, or pilots going from non flying assignments back to flying ones get their refresher course and sent to actual squadrons. Citing the success for easy cross integration by using them is laughable at best, and intentionally disingenuous at worst. The "Advanced" Super Hornet also isn't stealthed, not even in the front aspect. Sure, it has RCS reducing qualities, but it's not stealth, not by a long shot. The F-35 brings Stealth, unparalleled situational awareness through the Distributed Aperture System and a powerful integrated electronic warfare package. Capable, survivable, and future proofed. It's a far superior investment than sinking cash into an inferior out of date aircraft you'll have to replace in five years.

Putting money into Super Hornets would be a boneheaded idea. The aircraft shares next to no parts compatibility or systems capability with the older Legacy Hornets. So this means total overhaul in training, maintenance and tooling. It's an airframe that is being fast left behind, so parts are going to get scarce for it. It doesn't have stealth, which makes it incredibly vulnerable against an integrated air defense system, like the ones that can be fielded by Russia, Iran or North Korea. It is slow, short ranged and has poor payload options, and don't even get me started on the 'stealth pod'. The way you need to look at the problem is like this. What is the aircraft that is going to have the cheapest spares, the easiest coalition compatibility and the best chance of getting back after a mission? The F-35 will be the US's primary strike fighter for the next 40 years. And not just the US. Britain, Israel, Japan, Australia ect. ect. ect. Supporting this airframe in terms of maintenance will be far easier than any other platform. Because of the thousands that will be built, the amount of spares available from multiple potential sources will keep the price low and competitive, making maintaining the fleet easier. Canada's support mission will be drastically improved with the sensor integration and sharing that the F-35 brings to the table. If everyone is working on a common system, there is much less room for confusion and error. Canada can't afford to replace lost aircraft, so you want something that won't get shot down when you send it out. Stealth and the situational awareness the DAS gives you gives an F-35 the best chance of any fighter to get out in one piece. Add in that assistance from the international partners will make maintaining overseas easier, and you have yourself a winner. Long story short, even before getting into political ramifications, the F-35 is the best choice of the bunch. It's powerful, future proof and will be, in the end, the cheapest option going forward once you take into account all factors. Sure, the Hornet may seem like a cheaper aircraft on sticker price, but it won't be effective enough in a warzone, and scarcity of spares and a lack of commonality with international partners will make the price by the time Canada replaces it in a few short years after it becomes painfully obsolete, will be drastically more than the F-35.

Trudeau will find that his country is already in too deep into the program and that he's getting the best product, his campaign promise will fall by the wayside and Canada will stay in the F-35 program.

God I don't even really care anymore, I just want the plane to get announced to shut the wishlisters up :chair:

While this may not be the case for the current pace of the development, I'd actually say that an update to CA to greatly improve player run SAMs should be given priority. The ground game has huge potential and can greatly vary up the current pace of multiplayer gameplay. This is a giant untapped well of content, and streamlineing, refining and improving CA, especially with the introduction of EDGE and better terrain, should most certainly be a priority.

I'll stick to single seaters in my suggestions, here's 5 in no particular order. F-100D, SF2 gave me an appreciation for this bird, and I'd love to see it in DCS, there was a model knocking around a while ago that had gotten quite far, but personal issues apparently ended the project :( MiG-17 A surprise adversary that proved to be far deadlier than it had any right to be in the Vietnam war and a good fit for a lot of the oncoming Vietnam era aircraft. A-4M or K, yes, licensing this bird is apparently a bitch, but i still want it! Sepecat Jaguar, it doesn't seem to get much attention but it's one of those planes I've always felt was pretty cool. That and overwing sidewinder pylons. MiG-19, the first supersonic MiG, it's got some fascinating design characteristics.

Never said that. I only pointed out similarities to show that depending on how you frame it, any model can seem to be a boring point and click adventure.

Meh, everyone has their own tastes in planes, and the Nighthawk holds a dear place in my heart. EDIT: Again, it's a game, not real life. Chat with your buddies on TS, fly as lasing support for bomb haulers like the M2000 or F-5. Because it's a game, we get to play with things in a more interesting way than real life would dictate.

Yeah, because holding course and plinking a couple of tanks requires so much effort on the part of the A-10 pilot. :music_whistling: The challenge is what you make it. You can set up a mission and follow on Autopilot, drop and go, or you can fly it by hand. The fun comes in how you make up the mission, flying perfectly to real life SoP isn't necessary in a game.

I say yes it'd be cool. The A-10 can't defend itself anyway, it basically picks on ground formations that can't effectively fight back, so this would just be the stealth version of that. Slipping in at night, bombing targets would actually be rather fun for a not insignificant part of the community.