Fer_Fer

It looks very nice looking forward to release :)

not really, the highest speed achieved on the Foxbat was Mach 3.2 over Israel in the 70's. This was a recon version, and it killed off the engines but pretty much shows the frame (and available thrust) were more then sufficient to go faster then the Mach 2,85 that it normally had. Fact is, the Foxbat was an effective interceptor of the Blackbird, so my guess is the speed when fully loaded with fuel and missiles is around the Mach 2.5

To be honest, it could be anything. Personally, i am hoping for the Foxbat,

Corsair is pretty much a given. No body here gave a thought about IIRC the Yak 38?

If you want to add Chinese aircraft (and I can see the appeal, to a certain extend), why add essentially a Su 33 when you can have the J-10?

Not sure if it was posted here. but have it anyways. http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2015-092.pdf For a 1.5 Trillion USD project, they sure don't do a lot of stuff properly, in line with industry standards (88 page report)

Now, now, no need to start scaremongering, They haven't said anything about cancelling the project, but modelling systems is complicated (especially with hte A2G radar, they have to model that from scratch) so patience young Padawan. :) Unrelated to the above, Since our MIrage will get the Martell and Excocet, does anybody have an idea what the effective range is on those things?

Rafale Taking off from CV-75 Harry Truman Rafale's on the Harry Truman

The Report that was recently leaked states that the pilot could not move his head around and that the HMD (specifically mentioned) restriced his view to the sides and rear.

Has nobody considered that the Dogfighting part is pretty moot. and the Considerably more serious issue is the fact Lockheed apparently can't design a canopy that is roomy enough to move your head in? Come on people, Engineering 101, and you find this out after 100 models produced? Well guess we are going to pay another 50Bn USD for fixing this. If anything the Programme is horribly mismanaged to the point that if i were the Pentagon i would sue them over breaching. any flaws the F-35 has (real or perceived) pales in comparison with the rampant retardation of the guy's managing it. and quite frankly i'm surprised they didn't replace the persons in charge with one that has Common Sense.

I don't know Gents, Adding Su 35's etc might sound fun, but would wreak havoc on the MP aspect. I'd prefer a Vanilla MiG 31 with the AIM 54 clone, since it would solve the BVR problems the Russians have, while not being too much of an auto take (which the F15 and EF Phoon are (or will be most likely)

No, the IJAAF never used the BF109 in combat. A single 109 was shipped to Japan by Submarine (most likely one of the Italian long range subs) where it was tested, however the Japanese interest was mainly focussed on the engine, which would later on power the ki 61 and D4Y.

If i had to bet now, I'd be inclined to bet on the Corsair II as the final aircraft, Both VF111 (which uses a variation of the IJN flag) and VFA 83 used the Corsair II at one point or another. The second reason is that it would make for a nice counter to the MiG 21Bis, which is in dire need for something that it can face on a roughly equal footing. Leaves you with the Landing gear, which is most likely a version of Japanese plane ( A6M, Ki 84, Ki 43, Ki 44, and various others), (Although the F4 Phantom, F16, F2 also utilize a gear not unlike it, as does the P38) however not one they plan on modelling for sale, but as AI aircraft to fly against. Given the relative performance of the Corsair against Japanese types, its the most likely they are going for a 44 scenario for their campaign, limiting the amount of engagements that would be challenging enough for a campaign and a map.

If their FSX release is anything to go by, it would mean we get the Exocet. But to be honest, thats not even the most exciting feature. IMHO, the biggest selling point will be the SEAD ability which makes it the most versatile aircraft in DCS if it comes with the Armat :)

F-2 front gear leg? (its a longshot, but worth a shot)

Now i'm just curious. Has LN said anything about an agreement with Grunman, so they can model it as accurately as possible?

Given the fact we are getting a Hormuz map somewhere in the future, i do hope we can get the French Desert camo as well. Still not to sure on the A2A loadout though, i have only seen em with 4 missiles, but to me it seems like an awful waste of 5 other hardpoints, though

The Obvious? Sofar, the gearleg, has been concluded isn't the one of the A6M or J2M, so i am at a loss for what it is. We have been shown the Pit of the Corsair, But, the Corsair does not have gearlegs like the one shown. Likewise, we know that they are building only 1 WWII vintage bird (most likely the aforementioned F4U) and the other 2 are modern. Thus, Given the Flag (which is still used today) and the fact we have some other stuff, means we are looking at a plane, licenced, or designed, by, among others, Mitsubishi. Now That being given, you are essentially down to the following. - Mitsubishi F-1 (which doesn't have that kind of gearleg) - Mitsubishi F-2 (which has something that resembles said Gear leg) - F4EJ (licenced has the rear gear leg that looks like the one shown) - F4EJ KAI (see F4EJ) - F104J (again, licenced production by Mitsubishi, resembles Front gear) - Sabre Block 40, (licenced, unlikely given that there is a Sabre in game)

I wouldn't be too sure about that being the gear leg of an A6M, the F4, F5 and F-2 all seem to use a similar gear leg layout. and given the fact its most likely be a "Modern" jet

on the subject of Firehazard, http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20130114/NEWS/301140305/Report-Lightning-a-threat-to-the-F-35 On the subject of High Frequency radars http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141122/DEFREG03/311220016/China-s-Anti-Stealth-Radar-Comes-Fruition On the subject of Flaws, DoD isn't too happy with them, especially when you consider the F35 is in full mass production http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/not-ready-for-prime-time.html Report mentions deferrence of flight testing, engine problems, Problems with the helmetmounted displays, and a availability of less then the contractually agreed upon 60%, now im no engineer, but a lot of these things could have been ironed out in a limted set of preproduction aircraft, reducing costs, and therefore, not needing to fix these problems on a fleet of what? 100+ aircraft. Seems to me skipped extensive prototype testing.... As for the subject of Supercruising, The official definition is to fly at speeds above Mach 1 without the use of afterburner. The F-35 can't do that, unless it either uses minimal afterburner, or it drops below mach one after 150 Km. It kinda can, and then, it can't...... Compare this to the Rafale (for which i have the data at hand) which according to Daussault supercruises 39 minutes at mach 1.4 with 6 missiles. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110613/DEFFEAT04/106130302/F-35A-Testing-Moves-Into-High-Speeds As for devs cycles, There is a major difference, comparing the Rafale, EF and F-35 all of them have had issues, the difference is that where the Rafale and EF have gone through the standard system of Drawing-Prototyping-Finalized design-mass production. Lockheed has gone Drawing-Preproduction-Full production. Testing and mass production are running concurrently, not in sequence as is the norm.

Sorry to ask this, but to me it seems its kinda poor bargain for the cost you incur. Essentially, to me, it seems kinda like a too few eggs to many baskets plane. It has stealth, but it only carries a very small load, if it wants to make use of that capability. It is multirole, but all things considered, its poor at nearly all of them. It can't really supercruise, Poor Hydraulics incur significant risk from groundfire, and you lose the stealth the moment you want to bring more then 2 missiles on a sortie. and once you are done, you need to either let it dry 48 hours, or stick it in a fridge, neither of which i think is practical in a warzone, high or low. Likewise, to me, it seems that it still have considerable issues, which indicates poor management and even worse, a very bad development cycle. Likewise i seriously question the need of skipping a proper prototype phase in favor of production. In addition, the development of High Frequency radars, renders its stealth ineffective, not ot mention the Chinese seem to have considerable data on it as well, pre-empting its only real selling point, its stealth. So why bother with it, and its extremely large pricetag, apart from making hte Shareholders of Lockheed happy?

the non retractable fuel pod gives it character :)

I'd like to see that Harrier, especially if its a multirole after the Mirage to be perfectly honest :)