Bad Idea Hat

The post was saying more about my laptop (and current non-desktop activities) than about DCS. If I could play DCS on my laptop while sitting through the latest Hallmark Christmas move, I would.

Do you know how happy I was when I found out that BMS runs great on my laptop? (Before anyone says anything, DCS does not.)

My system is to put the gunsight down to about 80-100 mils, hang out long enough to get a valid launch, and ripple off your Shrike when you can get the site inside the inner ring of the sight. That's range and angle, and should let the missile guide in.

Since people are having a hard time with "technical winter";

See, a well placed shot at 10 miles is going to be tough, but what about the people who read the 10 mile comment and launch at 180 degrees from target and start screaming about "stupid nerfed Phoenix."

The Heatblur testing in their paper said that, against AI, they were taking shots at between 30 and 50 nautical miles with a good success rate. Irrespective of what a human opponent would do, that's a tough missile to beat.

My very, very quick and shoddy math says the engine should burn out around the 20nmi range. Is that roughly correct? edit - Okay, I have some rough figures using the HB paper. They're less shoddy and quick than the previous, as I'm relying on the internet to science! this for me. All at M1.1 500m - 7.8nmi engine burnout 6km - 10.4nmi engine burnout 12km - 13.4nmi engine burnout So, you said that 10nmi seems to be the magical range, and the math makes sense. I'm working on a few other calculations to see what distance the missile is downrange at mach 1.5 (which seems to be the distance at which the missile very roughly stops being dangerous against an evading opponents, AI or human).

Which movie soundtrack was the best, Top Gun or Iron Eagle

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf Everyone forgets that we know where HB is headed with the Phoenix (even if we don't hands-on testing yet).

You know, doing some research and the thought occurred to me; de Havilland Sea Vixen Weird, British, multicrew jet. Carrier-based, only armament were missiles, bombs, and rockets (no internal gun in production models). Somewhat difficult to fly, and the main protagonist in the night glowworm attack, which is the single craziest attack profile I've heard of, non-nuclear edition.

My point isn't that it's the same exact airframe with every mission, it's that the same basic frame is used for three different jets. They could be different variants, or three different actual models. No matter what, the goal would be to share similar parts, equipment, and interface so that there's only a need to train maintenance for the three aircraft in general (and hopefully need fewer avionics techs as well). Someone mentioned the F-15C and F-15E, and that's part what I was thinking about. More exactly would be throwing the F-16 in with the other two, so that everything had as much in common as possible to make maintenance easier.

Forgot to mention this, you guys have the same organic lighting that the Viggen has. Not saying it's the exact same lighting, just the same organic feel. Don't want to know how you do that, slightly concerned it involved the selling of souls. It looks really cool, though. Another tick in the box for "living, breathing aircraft."

Man, everything creates drama. The only thing you can do is either ignore the drama, or actively mock the people creating drama.

I had a post about not liking this idea, because I don't want to be sitting in the back and having the AI pilot decide that he wants to go off on a tangent, while I sit in the back thinking "I wonder what this clown is doing now." Except then I realized that I'm probably going to have that very same experience with a human pilot, so I like your idea now.

That's actually a really cool design feature from Grumman.

That's totally going to lead to me leaning out of the cockpit and yelling at invisible ground crew for screwing up my jet, while the very human RIO in the back wonders what he got himself into.

${1}

Wait that's not what happened why are you doing this to me?!

They're all multi-role jets, my idea is to have three variants fill fleet defense/interceptor, light attack, and medium attack/intruder roles.

The F-35 isn't exactly what I'm talking about. It's the same basic aircraft, doing everything. I'm talking about three different aircraft, each doing a different job, but sharing as many parts as humans possible, as well as an avionics interface.

Shh! :music_whistling:

Yeah, that really got out of hand.

The F-14 was simply too old and too much a maintenance hog by end of life. I love the jet, and believe something of its and the F-4's lineage should be still in the inventory. However, utility combat jets are the big thing now. I don't like the "jack of all trades, master of none" approach. What I would like to see is a sort of "modular" jet, where the airframe shares a large amount of components, including engine. Keep as much standard as possible, but build one variant with conformal fuel tanks and a more aggressive wing sweep, with a radar geared more towards air-to-air combat, and a loadout more focused on long-range missiles. Another aircraft would have a heavier wing to allow for larger bomb loads, and an avionics package (also modular) that is geared towards night intruder, precision strike, and the like. Maybe a third variant that aims towards lighter, fast in and out strike missions.

My favorite part about these threads is that they are now Spiderman threads