fltsimbuff

Agreed in hoping we never find out. But look at WWII. Bombers flew in box formations close together during daytime and suffered VERY heavy losses because it was necessary. They would have been safer doing this during the night but they were far less effective then, and accomplishing the mission meant incurring "acceptable losses." Recent wars have been fought in a manner to reduce own side casualties in exchange for increasing the time it takes to get the job done. This works when you have the prerogative on the battlefield. Past wars, and the expectation of WWIII would have been a fight for survival. If you can throw 100 A-10s at a formation of hundreds of advancing tanks and armored vehicles and lose 70 of them, it is still a mission success if you have halted or turned the advance, because they MUST be stopped NOW. I won't argue against the idea that newer tech has made low altitude gun-runs in that scenario one of the less effective strategies. Things like CBU-97s that could be dropped from stealthy aircraft at altitude have come along that would likely be more effective in this type of WWIII scenario. My point is that the A-10 was built to be effective to fight that WWIII scenario, and at the time it was built the GAU-8 would have been very effective in its mission compared to other available weapons. And now while it might not be the most effective tool we have for that scenario, it is quite effective for COIN operations as well, so worth keeping around.

I think we should wait until we have it in-hand so you can check it out under known lighting conditions and from all angles before deciding it is wrong ;)

In a campaign like the Gulf War where it wasn't a fight for existence (as a NATO vs Warsaw Pact fight would have been), losses were far less "acceptable." That was was able to be executed at the pace and discretion of the Allied forces. In a full scale NATO vs Warsaw pact type conflict (which the A-10 was designed to fight), the idea would have been dozens of A-10s flying low and slow and taking fire over very large armored formations. The way it was built makes it obvious it was expected that it would be flying down near AAA. This would have been necessary to slow down or halt an armored advance. In other words, while the current COIN environment isn't like the Gulf War, the A-10 wasn't built for either type of conflict. Your use of the Gulf War as the type of war the A-10 was built to fight is unfortunately flawed.

Oh, I am sure they aren't THAT heavy... ;)

I read the question as asking how the volume is measured rather than how that volume is converted to weight (which is pretty straight-forward). Maybe I misread.

I suppose it would depend on the plane... The F-15E for example: "The fuel quantity indicating system provides readouts in pounds of all usable internal, external and CFT fuel quantities. Fuel quantities are measured by floating type fuel level sensors hence erroneous fuel indications are possible during and immediately after hard maneuvering resulting from fuel slosh in the tanks." Source: http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology/fuel-system/93-fuel-quantity-indicator

I don't know... It looks kind of like a Mig-28 to me.

I figured... but I haven't installed any mods in the years I've used DCS (other than the modifications necessary for Tacview). Call me a DCS Purist.

A watched source branch never builds... It would probably do our F5 keys a lot of good (this is the 3rd time I've typed this out because I kept hitting the actual F5 key...:doh:) if we keep in mind the time it takes to test build, build, check for major errors, and stage updates. We should also not assume that the test will pass 100% (there may yet be issues to correct). Then again, you know what they say... Where there's smoke testing, there are flaming torches. I am keeping cautiously optimistic. Either way it won't be long now... And I am anxious to see those new textures for the existing map...

Good question. It would be nice if they could swim... But then pilots are pure ego, which I believe is water soluble.

Congrats! I get all my wheels blown off far too often. I'd strongly recommend getting the gear back up and doing a belly landing when that happens though...... (get rid of the weapons first)

You have a supersonic Cessna too?

It depends on how "Primary Armament" is defined. The A-10 doesn't always carry Mavericks, or Rockets, or Dumb Bombs or any of its other armaments, but Always carries the GAU-8 into battle. So if you define primary armament as the weapon it always carries, which is capable in the CAS mission, that would be the GAU-8. Try googling "A-10 Primary Armament" and you will see the GAU-8 being called that many many times. So if you are talking common-usage "Primary Armament" that is also the GAU-8. If you were to look up the M-2 Bradley, its "Primary Armament" is considered to be its 25mm bushmaster, although it carries TOWs that are more effective in the anti-tank role. Why? The turret was designed into the the vehicle. Same for the GAU-8. So if you are going to say that the GAU-8 is not the A-10's "Primary Armament" then answer me this... What IS?

Murdock, is that you???

Do you have any other game controllers plugged in that might be interfering? I was having issues where my throttle would keep getting reset to a lower value, and realized it was because of a Logitech rumblepad that was plugged in fighting my Warthog throttle. You might watch your throttle in the cockpit as you move your physical throttle to see if you see it jerking back, or if it moves at all.

In typical configurations the F-15C had better range than the F-16C/D (by a significant margin). It could carry fuel tanks without significantly impacting the weapons capacity it could carry. The F-16 with CFMs would change things, if we would shell out for them. The F-16 was also very limited by its lack of BVR missiles until the AMRAAM. The F-16 was built as a light-weight fighter, the F-15 as an air superiority fighter. While the F-16 is a sleek, nimble fighter, the F-15 is undefeated in the air-air role. Again, F-15s (or any fighters) rarely fired BVR. There were numerous occasions where IFF didn't work properly even when it was used, sometimes returning friendly on enemy units and vice versa. Many fights closed to WVR in order to get a VID, or closed to WVR while waiting for AWACs to double-check that there were no friendlies in the area. While the ROE for F-15s were less stringent, they still most often resulted in needing VID.

Right, none of that seems contrary to what I said. The F-16 gained some of the ability of the F-15 with the AMRAAM, but still didn't have the legs (range) or as powerful radar as the Eagle. The ROE required positive identification, which often required VISUAL identification. Again, not a technology issue but enforcement of ROE. The unreliability of IFF was a tech issue, but not with the weapons, but the IFF itself. The bigger part of the problem was that other coalition members didn't have IFF at all or didn't have the IFF codes to query. Another good example is the very limited tasking of Navy F-14s to intercepts because they had to rely on AWACS for IFF (they could not use IFF to interrogate potential targets). So yes, it was an ROE issue, not a tech issue. I am not saying the ROE was wrong, but it was very limiting.

It doesn't have to be obsolete for it to lose enough advantage that it is forced into WVR fights. The PAK-FA is supposed to be completed in 2016, so it's not like we have no reason to plan for Stealth-on-stealth fights. The very idea of going up against another Stealth aircraft means that the idea you will always see the other guy first in the F-35 is a non-starter. China and Russia both put a lot into SAMs, it's true. That is a much larger threat, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the Air threat. F-15s flew CAP for F-16 and other strike packages going into Iraq. Strike packages of F-35s will either need something else up there covering them, or they will end up getting into air-air fights that could result in a mission (soft) kill at the least. F-22s would do a better job of providing CAP, but there likely aren't enough of them. So the question becomes, can the F-35 when configured in air-air role successfully mix it up with enemy fighters (PAK-FA, SU-35s, or what have you) during CAP coverage? Will they be able to augment the F-22 there successfully? These are questions which haven't been answered yet, but which need to be addressed. I still feel the F-22 would have been ideal as CAP assets, and that the decision to rely on the F-35 to pick up slack in that area is a mistake. Maybe when the F-35 can hold its own in combat with an F-22 I'll change my mind.

Are you trying to say the F-16 was as capable as the F-15 at air-air? I am not sure what exactly you didn't like about my statement. We will have to agree to disagree here. The level of tech of the weapons had nothing to do with most of the WVR battles during that time. It was mostly ROE, which we cannot predict.

True in theory, but as of the most recent air battles, WVR fights still happen a lot, so we can't just pretend they don't. If you don't think F-35s ought to engage in WVR battle, and WVR battle is still necessary, then something that isn't insane to send into WVR battle is needed if you want to win. BVR is the ideal that has so far not been realized fully in actual combat. Until then, we need to assume WVR will take place and send the not "insane" choice into those battles. And to do that we need to have sane choices...

All very good points, but you make a lot of assumptions: - You assume the enemy will not have HOBS, Stealth, or systems granting equivalent situational awareness, which would even up the fight a bit and send the fight back towards BFM to break a stalemate. - You assume that enemy fighters are a non-issue and that we only need to focus on SAMs and AAA. To do that you would need something else (F-22s?) to take care of air threats, IF the F-35 can't do it all by itself. - You assume a poorly trained enemy, which has been the case in the past, but we cannot guarantee that going into the future. I am really not talking about gun kills either way. BFM is still required to get into position for a missile shot once you've reached the merge. HOBS doesn't necessarily mean you can shoot someone that is on your 6. PK also makes no difference when it is about identifying your target (IFF). I've never stated BVR weapons were no good, simply that they are often used WVR for many reasons.

Desert Storm was the last real air battle. What would you suggest we use? The stats on paper like they did when they removed the canon from the Phantom? We don't need to be making the same mistakes all over again. Theory != fact and these things need to be battle tested. The main reason there were even as many BVR kills as there were in Desert Storm was due to AWACs support. Exactly, but within visual range and with BFM involved, despite that many of the missiles fired were BVR Sparrows. Here is an interesting take on BVR vs WVR from the Air War College http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

Part of the justification for canceling the F-22 was that the F-35 was just around the corner and could take up the slack. Politicians argued this when it was voted to cancel the program. Implying that the F-35 can take over for it is implying it is capable enough to do so. It may well be in the current climate, but the F-22 still would have been better at its primary job. I never said it ignored it. I never even really said it is poor at it. I responded to criticism that if it isn't any good it doesn't matter because WVR is dead. WVR most certainly is not yet. It remains to be seen if it will be good enough in WVR, but I am saying yes, it IS important. It's great to have a replacement for the F-16 that is even better, but it's not just acting as a replacement for the F-16. With the cancellation (or truncated production) of the aircraft intended to replace the vital F-15, the F-35 needs to be able to pick up its job as well. Something good enough to replace the F-16 isn't automatically appropriate to replace the F-15 as well, as the F-16 couldn't do the job the F-15 could (as shown in Desert Storm). So to sum it up: YES WVR still matters. F-35 Price keeps going up. F-35 keeps gobbling up resources for other projects that it wasn't originally intended to replace. The F-35 is an awesome piece of technology that can certainly do the job of the F-16.

I agree that he has some valid points. DAS and the HMD will bring some awesome things to the table as well. And when it is all said and done, maybe the F-35 will gain some additional maneuverability or additional WVR capability. But I don't think anyone can dispute that the F-22 is the more capable air supremacy aircraft, and that force was diminished to the point it is barely combat-capable in any sort of peer-level conflict. This means we will need to rely more heavily on any unstealthy F-15s still in service and the F-35. (In case you haven't noticed, I am much more concerned about the early end of the F-22 production than replacement of USAF F-16s) BVR may seem to be the way forward in all our simulated battles, but that is still simulated. When you get right down to it, the last "major" air battle (Gulf War) still had over 50% of the air-air engagements take place within visual range. Everything I am saying is in support of my opinion, and is not meant to diminish the opinions of anyone else, GGTharos included. It is based on a lot of research into overall air strategy, tactics, and past air engagements in recent history. I am not convinced. The F-35 is going to have to prove itself worthy of all the resources it has stolen from other programs. *One other note to be clear: I absolutely do not believe it to be a lemon. It is shaping up to be very capable, and certainly more capable than anything any potential enemy has. The question is "Is it worth the cost in $$, and the cost to other projects." This is where I am unconvinced, especially as it is continuously increasing.

Have they 100% resolved all the IFF equipment issues then? That's a serious question. I know it was an issue in every recent conflict and haven't heard any progress made on that front. In theory... IRST and Mark 1 eyeballs notwithstanding. Remember what happens to plans when the shooting starts? What if we are going up against another Stealth aircraft? (PAK-FA or similar) There is still plenty of opportunity for fighters built for BVR to end up in a WVR fight. As BVR has not been yet combat-tested to show WVR combat obsolete, we should probably not be making that same mistake again.